2023 (11) TMI 638 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Cash deposits to the bank account of assessee - HELD THAT - From the orders of the authorities below, we clearly note that the CIT(A) after considering the basis taken by the AO calling remand report on the additional evidence filed by the assessee during first appellate proceedings and rejoinder of the appellant. It was held that the appellant is not engaged in the business activity and entire credits found to the bank account of assessee remained unexplained, therefore, CIT(A) after giving part relief to the assessee uphold the remaining part of addition. We are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived by the CIT(A) and thus, be uphold the same. Accordingly, ground of assessee are dismissed. Long term capital gain on sale of land - Addition granting major part of relief to the assessee and such amount was computed as per submissions and additional evidence filed by the assessee himself. Therefore, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings returned by the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground of assessee are also dismissed. Reopening of assessment - From the reasons, it is clear that the reason to believe was on the basis of information regarding certain cash transactions in the bank account of assessee and the assessee did not file any return of income and for the reason assessee did not file return of income for AY 2009-10. We are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) while dismissing the ground of assessee and upholding the action of the AO for initiation of reassessment proceedings.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include confirmation of addition of cash deposits as unexplained, treatment of long term capital gain as short term capital loss, and validity of reassessment order passed under sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Confirmation of addition of cash deposits:
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 39,76,185 as unexplained cash deposits, arguing that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without proper explanation. The Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition based on cash deposits to the bank account, with part of it being deleted in the first appellate proceedings. The Commissioner upheld the remaining addition after considering additional evidence and finding the credits unexplained. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, thus dismissing the appellant's grounds.

Treatment of long term capital gain:
Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,58,117 as long term capital gain, the appellant claimed it was actually a short term capital loss. The AO made the addition based on capital gain from the sale of property, which was partially relieved by the Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's decision was based on submissions and evidence provided by the appellant, and thus upheld the decision, dismissing the appellant's grounds.

Validity of reassessment order:
The appellant challenged the reassessment order passed under sections 147/144, alleging lack of valid jurisdiction and non-compliance with mandatory conditions. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information about cash transactions and the appellant's failure to file a return for the relevant assessment year. The Commissioner upheld the AO's actions, finding the reasons for reassessment valid. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, dismissing the appellant's grounds and upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the decisions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition of cash deposits and long term capital gain, as well as the validity of the reassessment order. The appeal was pronounced dismissed on 17.10.2023.