9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person will deposit USD 4849 in the name of the assessee in HSBC Geneva bank and the name of the father and mother also be given and the assessee will not have any information about it. This fully comes under the decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT Hence, the addition in this regard is liable to be sustained. As regards, the deposit in HSBC London, the assessee has not been able to provide any cogent evidence for the source of deposits. The submissions of the assessee have been without any reliable material. The explanation given by the assessee is only self-serving and has correctly been rejected by the lower authorities. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It is recorded in the assessment order that the AO had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax more than Rs.1 lakh had escaped assessment. It is seen from the assessment order that notices u/s. 148 was issued on 01.10.2013. As per the assessment order the assessment was reopened u/s. 147 on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that the appellant had a bank account with HSBC, Geneva and that during the course of investigation, it was also revealed that the appellant had a balance of USD 4,849/- in the said bank account as on March, 2006. In view of the above, the AO issued a notice u/s. 148 on 01.10.2013. The AO has mentioned in the order th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it was difficult to comprehend that if the appellant did not have this bank account in the HSBC Bank, Geneva then how his name as well as the name of his parents were seen on the paper pertaining to his bank account. The AO held that it went against the normal human conduct and the conduct of normal business by any bank that such intimate details of the appellant shall be maintained and recorded by a bank with which the appellant apparently has no connection whatsoever. The AO has recorded that the appellant had altogether denied knowledge and existence of any such bank account and had effectively stonewalled the possibility of any further investigation in this regard and in view of the adamant and non cooperative attitude of the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60 on 04.05.2005 and 07.09.2005 respectively) for the GBP 1000/- and 3000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant u/s. 68 of the Act. 6. Against the above order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Upon assessee s appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the order of AO by referring to several case laws and provisions of section 68 of the Incometax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The order of ld. CIT (A) may gainfully refer to as under :- 6.1. I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submissions filed by the AR. Section 68 of the Act is an antitax evasion provision and was incorporated into the act to obviate the possibility of introduction of unaccounted/undisclosed money in the books of account in the names of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentity is established the appellant is denying ownership of the bank account or explain the deposits. 6.3. The onus was on the appellant to prove genuineness of the transactions shown by them but they failed to do so. In this regard, judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Del) and CIT Vs N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 258 (Del) are relied upon. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estate (P) Ltd. (2016) reported in 70 taxmann.com 124 (Cal) and the judgment of ITAT, 'D' Bench, Mumbai in ITA No.1835/Mum/2014 dated 24.085.2016 in the case of Royal Rich Developers (P) Ltd. are also relied upon. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout the said bank account is totally unbelievable. It is beyond the preponderance of human probability that some unknown person will deposit USD 4849 in the name of the assessee in HSBC Geneva bank and the name of the father and mother also be given and the assessee will not have any information about it. I find this fully comes under the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). Hence, the addition in this regard is liable to be sustained. 9. As regards, the deposit in HSBC London, the assessee has not been able to provide any cogent evidence for the source of deposits. The submissions of the assessee have been without any reliable material. The expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
