2021 (1) TMI 70 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits in his IDBI and SBI Account - HELD THAT - From the facts of the case it is apparent that the assessee has not properly cooperated before the Ld. Revenue Authorities in their proceedings. Further, though the assessee had submitted certain bank statements before us, the entire transaction remains to be properly explained. Revenue Authorities have also not made any finding with respect to the bank statements produced before them. The affidavit furnished by the assessee also remains unverified. It is also apparent that the Ld. CIT(A) has made a detailed finding in his order with respect to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the appellate proceedings and non-furnishing of any cogent evidence to establish the transactions to be genuine. From the facts of the case it is further apparent that the assessee was not able to explain the source for the cash deposit before the Ld. Revenue Authorities by drawing proper accounts. Moreover, we find that the assessee was taking different stand before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of the proceedings before them. In this situation we do not find much merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. Considering the financial position of the assessee and the nature of his business, in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to remit the entire matter back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh consideration - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in IDBI and SBI account.
2. Non-cooperation of the assessee during assessment proceedings.
3. Verification of transactions and evidence provided by the assessee.
4. Discrepancies in the explanations provided by the assessee before different authorities.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The primary issue in this case pertains to the addition of unexplained cash deposits in the IDBI and SBI accounts of the assessee. The Ld. AO added amounts of ?87,89,900 and ?6,38,550 as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed that these deposits were related to loans obtained for a friend and contractual receipts from GHMC. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions citing lack of cooperation and failure to provide sufficient evidence by the assessee.

Issue 2: The non-cooperation of the assessee during the assessment proceedings was a significant concern. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee failed to provide details of transactions despite multiple reminders. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) highlighted the lack of cooperation and failure to produce necessary evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 3: The verification of transactions and evidence provided by the assessee was crucial in determining the genuineness of the cash deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) sought a remand report to examine the veracity of the affidavit and the cash deposits in the SBI account. However, the Ld. AO reported that the assessee did not cooperate during the proceedings, raising doubts about the authenticity of the transactions.

Issue 4: The discrepancies in the explanations provided by the assessee before different authorities raised doubts about the credibility of the claims. The assessee presented varying accounts of the transactions before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A), which undermined the consistency and reliability of the explanations provided.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cooperation from the assessee and directed the assessee to provide necessary evidence for a fair assessment. The judgment highlighted the need for transparency and consistency in explanations provided during assessment proceedings to ensure a just outcome.