9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee is a merely an entry operator and the amount has been later transferred to the actual owners and in view of the fact that assessee could not prove the transaction by getting confirmation from the respective investors and in the absence of proving the subsequent cash flow, the judgments relied by the AR are not applicable to the present case. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3377/DEL/2019 And I.T.A. No. 3378/DEL/2019 And I.T.A. No. 3379/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2022 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri V. K. Bindal, CA Ms. Rinky Sharma, ITP For the Department : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R.; ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the common order dated 19/02/2019 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] for the Assessment Years 2005- 06, 2006-07 2007-08 respectively. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- I.T.A. No. 3377/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2005-06) 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without allowing pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the due commission was also not received by him, c) by ignoring the recommendation of his predecessor to the CIT(A) that the appellant is a facilitator and only some percentage of cash deposits should be assessed as his income, d) by refusing to accept the confirmations of the intermediary companies explaining the modus operandi and reasons of receipt of the money from the appellant and which were filed through speed post and received by the assessing officer before completion of the impugned assessment, e) by ignoring the evidences placed on record vide submissions dated 27/12/2017 of the assessing officer even though the assessment order was passed on 31/12/2017 and he ought to have considered the same in the assessment order, Thus, above addition so made on surmises and conjectures should be deleted. ITA No. 3379/Del/2019( A.Y 2007-08) 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thus, the appellate order of appeal dismissal in summary manner must be quashed. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 18,50,000/-/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the investors and an amount of Rs. 1,07,64,950/- remained unexplained and the same has been treated as income of the assessee earned from other sources which has been assessed to tax as unexplained cash credit. The assessment order came to be by computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,07,64,950/- as against returned income of Rs.2,73,220/-. As against the assessment order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 15/12/2014 dismissed the Appeal by confirming addition made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 15/12/2014, the assessee has preferred an Appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 1505/Del/2015. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 11/03/2016 set aside the assessment order and remanded the issue to the file of A.O to make de-novo assessment for verification of details filed by the assessee and also to enquire from beneficiaries of the sum received from the bank account of the assessee. In compliance with the order of the Tribunal the Ld. A.O has passed an assessment order on 31/12/2017 by making an addition of Rs. 1,07,64,950/-. 7. As against the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash deposits in his bank account as his income only when the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and after the Assessing Officer issued the questionnaires, which is nothing but an afterthought. 13. It is the specific case of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had received the cash which was deposited in his bank account from his brother-in-law Sh. Dinesh Prasad who used to collect the money from different people for the purpose of making investment in equity shares of Companies and who use to utilize the services of the assessee since the assessee is stationed in Delhi and as per the arrangement between the assessee and his brother-in-law, the assessee use to get 1% commission of such cash deposits as entry operator, but due to death of Sh. Dinesh Prasad even the said amount is also not received by the assessee. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer has concluded in the remand report that the assessee has not able to explain the nature and source of the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. 14. As per Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, it is incumbent upon the person in whose books of account there are cash credits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, but the assessee could not explain the nature and source of the cash deposited in the bank account. Further, as per the list of the investors provided by the assessee, out of 280 persons as many as 89 persons to whom enquiry letters were issued by the A.O have denied having any transaction with the assessee and the remaining persons have either not replied to the letters issued to them or returned unserved to the A.O. Even in the second round after the remand, the assessee has provided the very same details and old addresses of the parties but the assessee has not able to provide the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. Since the assessee has miserably fail to prove the case of the assessee even after providing the opportunity by the Tribunal. 17. In so far as judgments relied by the assessee are concerned, in the present case, there is no material to show that the assessee is a merely an entry operator and the amount has been later transferred to the actual owners and in view of the fact that assessee could not prove the transaction by getting confirmation from the respective investors and in the absence of proving the subsequent cash flow, the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
