9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income has not been filed. As in the case of Smt. Uma Mandal [ 2021 (4) TMI 904 - ITAT JAIPUR] ITAT held that where Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice against assessee on ground that an information was received that assessee had deposited certain amount in cash in her bank account but did not file return of income, since Assessing Officer reopened assessment after recording due reasons and after following due process and such information available before Assessing Officer was relevant and afforded a nexus to formation of prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in hands of assessee, impugned reopening notice was justified. Therefore, in our considered view, looking into the totality of facts in the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer is justified in re-opening the assessment in the instant set of facts. The process of re-opening was initiated after affording due opportunity to the assessee to give explanation regarding source of deposit. It is only when the assessee failed to comply / co-operate that case was re-opened u/s 148 of the Act, after following due process of law. - Decided against assessee. Addition as cash credit in the hands of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed ex parte in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of AO of reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and not permissible either in law or on facts. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of ₹ 22,21,1007- as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. ₹ 6,66,330/- 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that alternatively, addition would be made u/s. 56 of the Act as Income from Other Sources without specific notice to the effect which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in enlarging the scope of the assessment by alternatively making the addition u/s. 56 of the Act when the AO had made no such addition. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making an addition of interest income of ₹ 2,052/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Particulars Amount (Rs.) Balance (Rs.) 24/09/2009 Deposit 1000 -1000 17/11/2009 Deposit 700000 -701000 01/12/2009 Deposit 750000 -1451000 03/12/2009 Deposit 50000 -1501000 23/12/2009 Deposit 100 -1501100 23/12/2009 Withdrawn 300000 -1201100 23/12/2009 Deposit 300000 -1501100 10/02/2010 Deposit 720000 -2221100 In view of this fact, the peak amount comes to ₹ 22,21,000/-. The amount of ₹ 22,21,100/- is not explained, therefore, the same is added to the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Since the assessee has concealed the income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for concealing the income. [Addition of ₹ 22,21,100/-]" 3.1 In addition, the Ld. Assessing Officer also made an addition of ₹ 2,052/- on account of unexplained interest income. 4. Before, the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the deposits represent gifts received from relatives in order to effectuate higher studies by the assessee. The assessee at the relevant time was a student of 19 years of age and in order to pursue higher education abroad, he has to show that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed to the Revenue. Further, they all are claimed to be the farmers and had agricultural income as mentioned above. However, the sale proceeds as reflected in the copies of sale bills for the crops sold to only one trader i.e. Shri Guru Jyot Traders of Visnagar and the bills did not bear the printed serial number and also the verifiable signature on such bills. If the appellant or these relatives had the copies of sale bills at the time of recording their statements on oath by the A.O., the same could have been produced before the A.O. for his verification. However, the appellant and their relatives failed to discharge their onus to prove that there was a genuine sale of agricultural produces. Suppose the sales as per the copies of sale bills are to be treated as genuine for the time being, the relatives of the appellant could not give the gift out of the entire sale proceeds as mentioned in the table above as the agricultural operations have to be carried out which involves incurring of the expenses at least 30% of the sale proceeds in the form of purchase of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, running of borewell through electricity, labourers engaged for agricultural ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney in the bank account which has been treated as unexplained cash credits. Further in the case of Renu Agrawal Vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Mathura reported at (2012) 22 Taxmann.com 94(ITAT Agra Bench), it has been held that:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that re-opening of assessment is bad in law since assessee's case has been reopened solely on the basis of deposit of certain cash in the books of account, which cannot lead to the inference that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He relied on several judicial precedents in support of his contention. He then drew our attention to page 9, para 5 of Ld. CIT(Appeals) order wherein it is evident that the assessee has submitted detailed documentary evidence to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of lenders. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that details of documentary evidences in respect of parties from whom gift were received were duly produced and hence the burden cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act to prove identity, genuineness an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account but had not disclosed same in its return, since assessee had failed to submit supporting evidences and source of income with regard to said cash deposits, impugned reopening notice issued against assessee was justified. Again in the case of Smt. Uma Mandal v ITO [2021] 128 taxmann.com 369 (Jaipur - Trib.), ITAT held that where Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice against assessee on ground that an information was received that assessee had deposited certain amount in cash in her bank account but did not file return of income, since Assessing Officer reopened assessment after recording due reasons and after following due process and such information available before Assessing Officer was relevant and afforded a nexus to formation of prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in hands of assessee, impugned reopening notice was justified. Therefore, in our considered view, looking into the totality of facts in the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer is justified in re-opening the assessment in the instant set of facts. The process of re-opening was initiated after affording due opportunity to the assessee to give explanation regarding sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer could not bring any positive material on record to show that from agricultural land possessed by the creditors, they could not have earned so much of agricultural income out of which amount in question could not be advanced by them. In the case of Kuldeep Singh v. ITO [2020] 113 taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh - Trib.)where assessee explained that amount deposited in bank account was received as gift from his father who had sold agricultural land, since revenue authorities had not doubted veracity of sale deed brought on record by assessee's father, source of cash deposited in bank was duly explained and, thus, impugned addition made under section 68 was to be deleted. In our considered view, the assessee has been able to establish the source of cash deposit. The Revenue has not brought anything on record that the lenders were not in existence (the Aadhar cards of lenders have been placed on record) or that they did not have agricultural land capable of earning agricultural income and neither the confirmations filed by lenders were challenged as being fallacious. The assessee has thus discharged the initial burden cast upon him u/s 68 of the Act. It is a well settle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
