9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence on the file as to source of the credits of the amount in question in the various bank accounts of the assessee, the AO had treated the said amount as unexplained income of the assessee. Once the AO had treated so, the AO was required to make the addition of this amount on substantive basis. Even without making the addition of the amount in question on substantive basis in any other persons’ account, the AO could not have made the addition of the amount on protective basis in the assessee’s account.CIT was justified in holding that the order of the AO was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided against the assessee. - IT(SS) No.30/M/2011, IT(SS) No.29/M/2011 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2015 - <!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-IN X-NONE <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... que books and bank slips were found referring to more than 100 bank accounts. Evidence was also found of tampering of documents such as PAN Card by substitution of name and photograph. In one case same persons photograph was used in 3 bank accounts under different names. Documents were also found to show that the assessee had floated a large number of bogus concerns and was in the business of raising accommodation bills for various parties. The assessee submitted that the concerns were not floated by him and they were genuine concerns. The PAN Cards and the copies of the bank pass book belong to the persons who supplied material and had business dealings with the assessee. It was explained that these documents were kept with the assessee for convenience as well as insurance to guard against fraud. The PAN cards were proof that the parties were genuine. The assessee provided confirmation from a number of persons who were supposedly running the above concerns. Enquiry letters were sent to the addresses provided by the assessee. Most of the letters were returned unserved. The assessee was asked to produce the persons. Only 9 persons were produced who were stated to be running multiple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aggregate amount of bank deposits of ₹ 1388.09 crores spread over various assessment years comprised in the block period, protectively, in the hands of the assessee and his business associate, in equal share (50%), had not given a finding with regard to the specific person or persons on whose hands the unexplained bank credits amounting to ₹ 1388.09 would be taxed on substantive basis. He observed that in the absence of such finding, the amount would in reality not be taxed in any person's hand on substantive basis. He therefore invoked the provisions of sec. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee was given an opportunity to show cause why the assessment should not therefore be cancelled and a fresh- assessment be made. In response to the above notice, assessee contended that the two limbs i.e the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue should coexist while invoking provisions u/s. 263 of the Act. That the assessment order framed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was also contended that the conclusion arrived at by the AO could not be termed as erroneous. In a case when one possible view w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be taxed in the hands of the assessee proportionately to the extent of his share in the business on a substantive basis as his own unexplained or unaccounted income. c. The assessee should be allowed opportunity to prove that the deposits are accounted for or are not the assessee's own income but income of some other person, y submitting proof of identity of such person creditworthiness of such person, business operation carried out and that the transaction is genuinely carried out by such other person. In a case where such proof is submitted, the amount or amounts would be reduced from the aggregate amount of unexplained bank deposits and taxed only on protective basis in the respective year or years . The remaining amount, .which remains unexplained, would be taxed in the respective years in the hands of the assessee proportionately, on substantive basis, as stated in the foregoing para. 6. The assessee has thus come in appeal before us agitating the revision of the assessment order by the Ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. The Ld. A.R. of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts of the assessee, the AO had treated the said amount as unexplained income of the assessee. Once the AO had treated so, the AO was required to make the addition of this amount on substantive basis. Even without making the addition of the amount in question on substantive basis in any other persons account, the AO could not have made the addition of the amount on protective basis in the assessee s account. From the above facts, the Ld. CIT was justified in holding that the order of the AO was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT while invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act and thereby revising the order of the AO. The same is therefore upheld. ITSS No.29/M/2011 8. The assessee in the case in hand was partner/associate in equal shares with Atul Sanghvi i.e. the assessee in the above discussed appeal No.30. The facts and issues involved in this case being identical in nature to the above discussed appeal i.e. IT(SS)A No.30/M/2011, hence, in view of our observations made above, this appeal is also decided against the assessee. 9. In the result, both the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
