9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of ld. CIT(A). ITAT confirmed that assessee has herself reported under her signature in her income tax return filed after replying the notices from the assessing officer that the impugned bank account with the ICICI Bank was pertained to her. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we consider that the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit detected in the saving bank account, It was a very long adjudicated order passed after taking into consideration actual facts distinguishable from the facts in the case laws referred by the assessee. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we consider that the power of rectification u/s. 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is subject to be rectified is an obvious patent mistake, which is apparent from record and not a mistake which is required to be established by argument and long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinion. In the light of facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee and the same is dismissed. - M.A. No. 114/Ahd/2020 (In ITA No. 1198/Ahd/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, on 13 March, 2014 a notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee to file the return of income within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. Therefore, no infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in upholding the reopening of the assessment was found and the cases referred by the assessee were distinguishable from the facts of the case of the assessee. It is clear from the facts elaborated by the Assessing Officer that at the assessment stage, the assessee has vehemently claimed that the cash deposited in the saving bank account maintained with the ICICI Bank was from her business of trading in iron and steel. During the course of assessment, the assessee has tried to link the source of cash provided in the said bank account with the ledger account maintained in the case of M/s. Hari Krishna Steel Trader ( a dealer from whom the assessee has purchased steel iron) and the assessee has claimed that cash deposited in her bank account was her business receipt from the aforesaid business of trading in iron and steel after making reference to the ledger account. However, on verification and investigation, the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt claim made before the ld. CIT(A) that the bank account was not belonged to her found to be false claim. Considering these specific facts which are distinguishable from the cases referred by the assessee, the ITAT has not found any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). The relevant finding of the ITAT is reproduced as under:- 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Ground Nos. I 2 are against the decision of Id. CIT(A) in upholding reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the act. On perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that assessee has not filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the act till 31s' March, 2014. There was a specific information with the assessing officer that assessee had deposited cash to the amount for ₹ 13,11,0007- in her saving bank account maintained with the ICICI Bank. Since the assessee has not filed any return of income within the time limit u7s. 139(1) of the act, therefore, notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued. The assessing officer has issued a letter dated 19th December, 2013 to the assessee stating that as per information received by the Income Tax Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nos. 1 2 of the assessee are dismissed. Grounds of appeal no. 3 to 6:- In addition to the facts as elaborated above, the assessee has filed the income tax return only on 8 December, 2014 declaring income of ₹ 1,09,626/-. The assessee has claimed in the return of income that she has earned business income of ₹ 80,984/- from the business of trading in iron and steel, however, on verification the assessing officer noticed that assessee has claimed purchases made from one party M/s. Harikrishna Trader but the said party was not existed at the given address. The assessee could not substantiate with relevant evidences that she was engaged in any business. Subsequently before the id. CIT(A) the assessee had claimed that she had not signed the account opening form and the bank account was operated by her travel agent. The assessee has failed to furnish any communication from the bank stating that this account was not pertained to her. In this regard, we have verified the paper book submitted by the assessee and it is noticed that at page no. 29 to 31 the assessee has placed the copy of income tax return filed by the assessee for the year under consideration on 8th Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
