2021 (6) TMI 1021 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 - HELD THAT - As noticed that during the year under consideration, an information was received from the ADIT (Inv.), Ajmer regarding cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. AO issued necessary notices to the assessee for explaining the deposits of cash in the bank account and in response thereto, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee s account was used by his fast friend Mr. Kana Ram to deposit sale proceeds of his immovable property. As submitted by the assessee that since Mr. Kana Ram was his fast friend and at the time of sale of his immovable property, the said Kana Ram was not having any bank account in any bank, therefore, he requested the assessee to deposit the said funds in assessee s account and it was agreed between the assessee and Mr. Kana Ram that Kana Ram would transfer the entire amount to his bank account as and when the same is opened in any bank - as per the assessee, an affidavit was given by said Mr. Kana Ram to the assessee. As further submitted by the AR that the amount deposited by Mr. Kana Ram was withdrawn/paid as per the direction of Mr. Kana Ram and the details of the buyers have already been given by the assessee in his written submissions which of the order of the ld. CIT(A). We noticed that in order to verify the statement of the assessee, summons was issued to said Mr. Kana Ram by the ADIT (Inv.), Ajmer. However, in response to the said summons, the reply was filed by one Shri Shailendra Singh Rathore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kana Ram thereby taking a contrary stand and denied the liability of the said Kana Ram. Even during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. had sought information from the bank u/s 133(6) of the Act and also issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the said Kana Ram. On one occasion, the said Mr. Kana Ram sought adjournment on the ground that he is ill and therefore, on said request, the matter was adjourned by the A.O. for 10/12/2018. The said Mr. Kana Ram did not appeal. Again, another notice through registered post was sent to Mr. Kana Ram, however, the same was returned back unserved by the postal authority with the remark recipient is out of Kekri and refused to receive the post by his family members . All those facts on record goes to show that the assessee has miserably failed to prove the affidavit filed by the said Mr. Kana Ram and even the said Kana Ram did not attend the office of the A.O. in spite of the fact that he was served with the summons U/s 131 of the Act. In this way, the statement made in the said affidavit remained unproved and no other independent evidence has been brought on record by the assessee to substantiate the statement made by the said Mr. Kana Ram in the affidavit. No evidence has been placed on record in the shape of ITR of the said Mr. Kana Ram for the year under consideration reflecting the source of the funds. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) do not need any interference. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of additions and disallowances made under section 143(3)/147
2. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account under section 68 of the Income Tax Act

Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Validity of Additions and Disallowances
The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2014-15 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal challenged the jurisdiction of the additions and disallowances made, seeking their deletion. The hearing of the appeal was conducted through video conference due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The A.O. had determined the total income of the assessee at ?40,55,250 by adding ?34,50,000 on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s action, leading to the appeal before the ITAT.

Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits
The appeal challenged the addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the Act. The assessee argued that the deposits were made by a friend, Mr. Kana Ram, who did not have a bank account at the time and requested the assessee to deposit the funds, assuring to transfer them back once he opened an account. The assessee provided an affidavit from Mr. Kana Ram and details of payments made from the deposited amount. However, Mr. Kana Ram's response to summons contradicted the affidavit, denying liability. Despite efforts to summon Mr. Kana Ram, including adjournments, he did not cooperate or provide evidence. No ITR of Mr. Kana Ram was presented to establish the source of funds. The ITAT found the affidavit unproven and lacking independent evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the additions and disallowances made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) regarding the unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the decision, as the assessee failed to substantiate the claims made, and no new evidence was presented during the appeal.