9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on him is without any basis, and the same is rejected and the additional ground raised by the assessee, in this regard, are hereby dismissed. Unexplained cash deposits in the bank account - contention of the assessee that two saving bank accounts in HDFC bank did not belong to the assessee is not acceptable. Two accounts found to be jointly held by the assessee and his wife. In response to the summons, the Bank Manager furnished visible photo of the account holder, which prima facie establish that account holder was present at the time of opening of the bank account, and it is crystal clear that the assessee is the same person, who is holding two bank accounts jointly with his wife. Furthermore, even assuming for a moment that SB account does not belong to the assessee, the assessee has not filed any FIR against the so-called forged bank account. Further, in the order-sheet dated 16.12.2015, the assessee s representative has accepted that the bank accounts wherein cash deposited, which are nothing but belongs to the assessee only. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the bank account are not belongs to him is not proved with proper evidence. Therefore, this ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and consequent levy of interest under section 234/A/B/C and initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) were also challenged before the ld.CIT(A). 4. As against the first ground of validity of re-assessment order under section 147 of the Act, the assessee has not filed any specific submission, therefore, the same was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A). As against cash deposits of Rs.71,86,890/- after a detailed discussion the same was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) as follows: The facts of the case are considered and explanation of appellant is not found tenable in view of following observations: (i) During the course of assessment proceedings, AO has issued various notices to appellant and even notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued at the address of Chokcino Dhhar, Nr Chabutaro, Unjha being address as mentioned in HDFC Bank accounts .and same were duly served to appellant and appellant has never objected that address mentioned in above notice do not belong to appellant or notices are issued in incorrect name. Appellant has never appeared before the AO during reassessment proceedings and created the afterthought story that two bank accounts do not belong to him in appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EMAT client id 18094423 as charges pertaining to above account was debited in bank account whose cash deposits were considered as unexplained cash deposit by Assessing Officer. The date of birth as mentioned in KYC form clearly matches with the date of birth of appellant. The photograph attached with- KYC form, along with signature clearly reflect the photograph of appellant. Driving license attached along with KYC form bear the photograph of appellant. Said license attached with KYC form was book license as issued by RTO and bear DL No 16331 which matches with new computerized license . obtained by appellant and submitted during assessment proceedings. The above facts clearly establishes that even DEMAT account opened in HDFC Bank belong to appellant and demat charges pertaining to this account was debited in two bank accounts. As shares transactions showed loss of Rs.2,51,841/-, same was not considered while adjudicating the present issue. vii) It can be seen from the copy of order sheet as reproduced hereinabove, the authorized representative of appellant on 16th December 2015 has accepted account wherein cash was deposited is nothing but belong to appellant only. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ussed hereinabove, income of appellant is enhanced by Rs.71,00,000/- and penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is separately initiated. 6. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: (1) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs. 71,86,890/- as unexplained cash deposited in saving bank account with HDFC Bank Ltd., Unjha branch In as much as, (i) The A.O. had not proved cash deposited in bank a/c with corroborative evidence that it belonged to assessee. The cash deposited simplisiter can not be income of assessee. (ii) The A.O. had not carried out proper verification investigation in source of cash deposited. iii) The AIR information can not be relied on. (2) The learned CIT(A) has erred in making additional addition (enhancement) of Rs.71,00,000/- to the assessed income, being cheques credited in HDFC Bank, Unjha branch A/c No. 01791000026578, In as much, i) The source of Cheques deposited in bank a/c was fully explained to CIT(A) . The contra bank A/c; name address of A/c holder were given to CIT(A) he was requested to inquire u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s received by the wife of the assessee by affixing her signature as well her cell-phone number. The assessee s wife is an adult member of his family and whenever notice is being issued in the absence of the assessee, notices served to the adult family members, which is deemed to be proper service of notice. However, the fact is that the assessee has not filed return of income pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the AO, and also not participated in the hearing in pursuance of the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act calling for various information from the assessee. Further the ld.DR has also stated that the assessee, both in form no.35 and 36 in his appeals before the CIT(A) and the before this Tribunal showed the same address was given as Chokcino Dhhar, Nr.Chabutaro, Unjha. This claim of the assessee that the notice served on the wrong address is not valid in law. 10. The ld.DR brought to our attention page no.5 of the CIT(A) s order wherein written submissions of the assessee dated 22.8.2014 has been reproduced as follows: 2) Why assessment proceedings were not attended before Income Tax Officer: For F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Since 148-notice has been served on the assessee, which was received by the assessee s wife by subscribing her signature as well as cell-phone number in the notice. It is thereafter 143(2) and 142(1) notices were also duly served upon the assessee. So this judgment relied by the ld.AR is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, reopening of the assessment is valid in law. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, based on the AIR, the AO has found cash deposits of Rs.13,25,490/- in the bank account by the assessee, and non-filing of return by the assessee made the AO to invoke section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As rightly stated by the ld.DR, we do not find any infirmity in the reason recorded by the AO in the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. 13. The next aspect is about service of 148 notice. The assessee in its written submissions dated 22.8.20014 has clearly admitted that assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs to him is not proved with proper evidence. Therefore, this ground is also required to be rejected. 16. The ld.DR also invited finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Delhi Bench wherein the assessee-company stated that the bank account was opened by it, but on inquiry the bank has not replied to the AO. Therefore, Tribunal held that no adverse inference can be made and the matter was remitted to the file of the AO to consider the issue afresh. But in the present case of the assessee, Bank Manager of HDFC Bank produced KYC forms as well as clear copy of photo affixed in the account opening form which confirms that the assessee is the person who opened bank account. Thus, the case law relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. We have heard rival contentions. We do not find any merit in the arguments of the ld.AR both on validity and reopening of the assessment as well as on merits of the case on account of following reasons: i) The assessee had never filed return of income and but claimed that the bank deposits cannot be the income of the assessee relating the Asst.Year 2006-07; ii) The assessee is bound to file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
