2014 (6) TMI 172 - AT - Income Tax

Confirmation of addition Peak credit - Undisclosed bank account maintained - Unexplained income Held that - The AO noticed that certain deposits were made in the bank account maintained with State Bank of India which included cheque as well as cash deposits but the deposits were not offered to tax and in the absence of satisfactory explanation from the Assessee, the entire deposits were considered as undisclosed income - there is no material on record to demonstrate that on the evidence that were filed by the Assessee before CIT(A), any remand report or comments were called by CIT(A) - Revenue should be allowed an opportunity to examine the evidence that were filed before CIT(A) and on the basis of which relief was granted to the Assessee - With respect to cash deposits, it is the submission of the Assessee that that the entire cash deposits cannot be considered as income but only the peak credit should be considered as income - only peak credit has to be considered as income and not the entire credit thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of unexplained income.
2. Explanation of cash and cheque deposits.
3. Application of peak credit theory.
4. Adequate opportunity for the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Unexplained Income:
The primary issue in these appeals is the addition of unexplained income based on deposits in undisclosed bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) identified significant cash and cheque deposits in the accounts of the assessees, which were not initially disclosed or explained. For instance, in the case of Jayaben Kaneria, the AO added Rs. 82,45,026/- as undisclosed income, while the CIT(A) reduced this to Rs. 48,40,000/- after considering partial explanations provided by the assessee.

2. Explanation of Cash and Cheque Deposits:
The assessees argued that the deposits were from legitimate sources, such as transactions with group concerns and personal savings. However, the AO found inconsistencies and lack of substantial evidence. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation for cheque deposits but not for cash deposits. For example, in the case of Jayaben Kaneria, the CIT(A) accepted the cheque deposits as they were reflected in the audited balance sheets of group concerns but did not accept the explanation for cash deposits, treating Rs. 48,40,000/- as unexplained income.

3. Application of Peak Credit Theory:
The assessees contended that only the peak credit amount should be considered as income, not the entire deposits. The tribunal agreed with this principle, noting it is a settled law that only peak credit should be considered. However, the working of peak credit provided by the assessees was not examined by the AO. The tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to re-examine the evidence and calculate the peak credit appropriately.

4. Adequate Opportunity for AO to Examine Evidence:
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) granted relief based on evidence that was not presented to the AO. The tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to have an opportunity to review and comment on the new evidence. Consequently, the tribunal remitted the cases back to the AO for a thorough examination of the evidence and to ensure fair play and justice. The AO is directed to grant adequate opportunity to the assessees to present their case and submit all required details.

Conclusion:
In all the appeals, the tribunal allowed the cases for statistical purposes, remitting them back to the AO to re-examine the evidence and submissions provided by the assessees. The AO is to work out the peak credit and decide the issues as per law, ensuring that the assessees are given adequate opportunities to present their case. This approach ensures a fair reassessment and proper application of the peak credit theory.

← Previous Next →