2022 (10) TMI 20 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s 69 - No link between the withdrawals and the deposits of cash in bank - assessee submitted that he was acting as intermediary i.e. broker in land trading nearby area of his native place and claimed that there was an opening brought forward cash balance - AO adopted the peak credit method and made and addition - HELD THAT - No force in the argument of the assessee for the reason that the assessee having not filed the Return of Income for the present Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee had only furnished cash book for the Assessment Years 2010-11 2011-12 and no Income Tax Return was filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 2010-11 to justify the cash balance is brought forward for the earlier years. From the Return of Income filed for the Assessment Year 2011-12 it is seen that the assessee has shown only income from other sources and no other income. The assessee could not establish the cash withdrawals to crack the real estate deal. Thus the assessee has not established the entire cash deposit in Nutan Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd.. Assessing Officer seems to have taken a reasonable approach and considering the circumstances of the case made a least peak credit as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act which does not require any interference in the absence of material evidence before any of the Lower Authorities. In the above circumstances, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby rejected and the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account.
2. Validity of the notice issued under section 148.
3. Appeal against the order passed by CIT(A).

Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits:
The appellant, an individual, had deposited a significant amount of cash in their bank account without filing a return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the explanation provided by the appellant regarding the source of these cash deposits. The appellant claimed to be working as a broker in land trading but failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence for the cash deposits. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained investment. The appellant challenged this addition on various grounds, including the lack of supporting evidence and the excessive nature of the addition. However, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish the source of the cash deposits and the lack of material evidence to justify the claimed income. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was reasonable and did not require any interference, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

2. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The appellant also contested the validity of the notice issued under section 148, arguing that the proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were illegal and unlawful as the conditions precedent were not satisfied. However, the Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and proceeded to assess the case based on the substantive issues related to the unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of evidence provided by the appellant to substantiate their claims, rather than the procedural aspects of the notice issued under section 148.

3. Appeal Against CIT(A) Order:
The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), including allegations of illegality, lack of consideration of submissions, and excessive addition of undisclosed investment. The Tribunal carefully examined each ground of appeal but ultimately rejected them, citing the appellant's failure to provide adequate evidence and justification for the cash deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating financial transactions and income sources, highlighting the appellant's inability to do so in this case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to add the unexplained cash deposits as undisclosed investment, dismissing the appellant's appeal and affirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000. The judgment underscores the significance of providing verifiable evidence to support financial transactions and income sources in income tax assessments.