9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee that addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of the bank statement is rejected. Argument of the assessee that only commission @ 0.5% should be added and not the entire deposits is concerned, we find the Assessing Officer, while making the addition has followed his order for assessment year 2004-05 in assessee s own case. The ld.CIT(A) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by following the order of his predecessor in assessee s own case. We find when the matter travelled to the Tribunal, the Tribunal for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 [ 2013 (10) TMI 1522 - ITAT DELHI] and [ 2013 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT DELHI] has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh in the light of the direction of the Tribunal and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relying on various decisions made addition of ₹ 18,99,300/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he rejected the argument of the assessee that only commission income was required to be brought to tax. He noted that the conduct of the assessee goes to show that he has received no such commission income which is self evident from the returns of income filed firstly u/s 139 and, thereafter, u/s 153A of the Act. Had there been an iota of truth at least in the subsequent return filed u/s 153A for this year, then, the assessee would have offered such commission income. However, the assessee has not shown any commission income at all. He accordingly rejected all the arguments advanced before him. 4. Aggrieved with such order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- 1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of A.O. making addition ₹ 18,99,300/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account without appreciating that since admittedly the appellant has been carrying on the business of providing accommodatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has been carrying on the business of providing accommodation entries through a number of companies promoted by him. The addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of bank statement of the assessee. He submitted that the relevant entries were recorded by the assessee in the books of account. Referring to the provisions of section 68, he submitted that addition could be made only with reference to credit entries in the books of account. Since the bank statement is not in the nature of books of account of the assessee, therefore, no addition could be made u/s 68 on the basis of bank statement. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the SMC Bench in the case of Vinesh Maheshwari vs. ITO reported in 2019(3) TMI 1118-ITAT DELHI . He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act which has been upheld by the CIT(A) should be deleted since no addition can be made on the basis of bank statement. 6.2 So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to the following decisions, submitted that addition cannot be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, cash deposited could not be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 9. Referring to the above, he submitted that it is evident that the assessee was carrying on the business and the cash deposited constituted its business receipt. The amount was credited in the books of account of the assessee and he failed to discharge the onus cast upon him in terms of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron Steel (P) Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) , he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that where there was a failure of the assessee to establish the credit worthiness of the investor company, the Assessing Officer is justified in passing the assessment order making additions u/s 68 of the Act of share capital/share premium received by the assessee company. Merely because the assessee company has filed all primary evidence, it cannot be said that the onus on the assessee to establish the credit worthiness of the investor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment year 2004-05 and relying on various decisions, made addition of the same u/s 68 of the Act which has been upheld by the CIT(A). It is the first proposition of the ld. counsel for the assessee that addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of the bank statement since the bank statement is not the books of account of the assessee and, therefore, addition could not be made u/s 68 of the Act. For the above proposition, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the SMC Bench of the Tribunal in Vinesh Maheshwari vs. ITO (supra). It is the submission of the ld. DR that as per the ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A), the assessee was carrying on the business of providing accommodation entries and the cash was deposited in the bank account of the assessee during the course of such business activity for providing accommodation entry. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the argument advanced by the ld counsel for the assessee that addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the IT Act on the basis of bank statement especially when the assessee is engaged in business as per ground of appeal before the CIT(A). So far as the decision relied on by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
