9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the submissions of the assessee, the bank statement which have been reproduced by the CIT(A) in his order has given a finding that for A.Y. 2015-16 assessee had filed return of income of Rs.9,05,220/- which could not explain the source of its deposit of Rs.51,00,000/-. He has further given a finding that for the cash deposit of Rs.27,50,000/- no reasonable explanation was furnished by the assessee and the summons issued to Hitesh Bhatia was not complied with. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by assessee - if the circumstances required u/s 68 and the findings of CIT(A) are taken into consideration, then in the present case we are of the view that the assessee has not discharged the burden which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.27,50,000/- out of the addition of Rs.51,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act representing the deposit made by one of the director of the company during the year under consideration, when he had an opening balance of Rs.55,84,980/- in the company. 2. In confirming the above addition of Rs.27,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act when the depositor is one of the directors of the company, who is an existing assessee, has confirmed his account in the company, and has filed evidence in support of the credit entries in his account with the assessee company during the year. 3. In not accepting the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor, who is a regular Income Tax assessee, had opening cash in hand of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, remand report received from the assessee granted partial relief to the assessee by observing as under: 14. Considering the above facts, it is held that the appellant has failed to prove creditworthiness of Shri Hitesh Bhatia due to following reasons: i. During A.Y 2015-16, Shri Hitesh Bhatia filed return of income of Rs. 9,05,220 which could not possibly explain source of his deposit of Rs. 51,00,000 in the appellant company. ii. Cash of Rs. 27,50,000 was found deposited in bank account of Shri Hitesh Bhatia for which no reasonable explanation has been furnished. iii. Summons u/s 131 were issued to Shri Hitesh Bhatia on 13.11.2017 against which there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 68 of the Act inter alia provides that wherein the sum of found credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year, the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not found to be satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as income of the assessee of the previous year. In the case of cash credit in the books of accounts, the assessee has to establish; (a) the identity of the party, (b) his capacity and (c) the genuineness of the transaction. In order to discharge the burden which Section 68 casts upon the assessee, the assessee has to not only establish the identity of the source but also establish at least prima facie the capacity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
