9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g sufficient cogent material to form his reason to believe about escapement of income so as to reopen the case and therefore, issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for re-opening the assessment was valid and legal, hence sustained. Addition u/s 69A - Unexplained cash - cash deposited in the bank account - HELD THAT:- As there is no evidence that assessee does any business. Further, ld. CIT (A) has found that there is no evidence/proof of agricultural income. In these circumstances, the source of cash remains unsubstantiated. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A). Appeal decided against assessee. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Notice u/s 148 dated 30.3.2016 served on 22.8.2016 by Inspector of Assessing Officer to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, questionnaire and notice u/s 142(1) were issued from time to time and sent through speed post but almost every notice returned undelivered with remark Insufficient Address Thereafter, notices were served through Inspector of the AO. On perusal of records, it was noticed by the AO that assessee had deposited cash amount of Rs. 19,90,120/- in F.Y. 2008-09 in his saving bank account No.30099373576 in State Bank of India, Morena. The assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 belatedly on 17.5.2017 in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.3.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 1,49, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO added Rs. 16,70,120/- (19,90,120-3,20,000) to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2017. 4. Against this order, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). As regards assessee s challenge to validity of reopening, ld. CIT(A) considered the issue and held as under :- I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts of this case and various contentions advanced by the assessee. This is an undisputed fact that assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2009-10. Moreover, the ld. AO has AIR information available with him in ITD system that assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 19,90,120/- during FY 2008-09 in his Saving B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 148 of the Act. Hon'ble ITAT has held that this AIR information supported by material was sufficient enough for the AO to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act and hon'ble ITAT upheld the action of re-opening by saying that no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO. Thus, present case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT. Indore in the case of Smt. Sharmila Devi Dungarwal and hence ground #2 is held to be unsustainable. In view of the above discussion inter alia ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd Case by ITAT in the case of Smt. Sharmila Devi Dungarwal, I hold that ld AO was having sufficient cogent material to form his reason to believe about esca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily of agriculturist who owns sufficient land holding but claim of agricultural income must be supported by corroborative evidences like sale of crop, expenses incurred on agricultural activity etc. Assessee has obviously not furnished any cogent evidence of this nature. Hence, in absence of any evidence whatsoever, claim of agricultural income cannot be accepted simply on the basis of 'Rin Pustika or a certificate from village Sarpanch. Assessee has admittedly did not provide sufficient details/evidence about credits and withdrawals made from said bank account making him disentitled for availing benefit of 'peak credit'. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari Vs CIT (2005)276 ITR 38 (A11) has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unexplained money. Hence, ground #2 stand dismissed. 6. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. None appeared on behalf of the assessee for a long time. We have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the records. 7. We find that ld. CIT (A) has passed a reasonable order which does not need any interference on our part. Ld. CIT (A) has clearly noted that there is no evidence that assessee does any business. Further, ld. CIT (A) has found that there is no evidence/proof of agricultural income. In these circumstances, the source of cash remains unsubstantiated. Hence, we uphold the order of ld. CIT (A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
