9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the said concern was opened with ICICI Bank by someone else by forging the PAN Card and signature of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are inclined to accept the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and since the ld. D.R. has also not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification, set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee in the light of the evidence brought on record in the form of complaints filed with the concerned Police Station as well as RBI. The Assessing Officer shall cause any further inquiry as he may deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the return originally filed by him on 02.02.2013 may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee denied of having any relation with the two proprietary concerns namely M/s. Finwise Services and M/s. Vision Enterprises. This stand of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer in the absence of any credible evidence and keeping in view that no explanation was offered by the assessee in respect of cash deposits of ₹ 2,33,970/- found to be made in the Bank account of M/s. Finwise Services maintained with ICICI Bank, he added the said amount to the total income of the assessee by tre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was an act of forgery done by some miscreant in the name of the Appellant, which the successor AO acknowledged while passing an order subsequently for the A.Y. 2011-12. So this ground of appeal is related to the same issue of ground No. 1 and correlated with the addition of cash amounting to ₹ 2,33,970 in the ICICI Bank account of M/s. Finwise, which is not owned by the appellant . 4. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not find merit in the submission of the assessee and proceeded to confirm the addition of ₹ 2,33,970/- made by the Assessing Officer for the reasons given in paragraph No. 3.3 of his impugned order:- 3.3. I have gone through and perused the relevant assessment records. The appellant during both assessment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the addition of ₹ 2,33,970/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the cash deposits found to be made in the bank account of M/s. Finwise Services maintained with ICICI Bank was confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) mainly on the ground that the claim of the assessee of having no relation whatsoever with M/s. Finwise Services was not supported by any evidence in the form of an FIR filed by the assessee with the Police Department regarding forgery committed by unknown persons, who had allegedly opened the concerned Bank account by misusing the PAN Card of the assessee. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that such FIR was indeed filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
