9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed earlier by the assessee, the onus cannot be cast on the AO to prove its utilisation by the assessee for any other purpose. Rather, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the said undisclosed additional income was not utilised by it for any other purpose in the aforesaid years and was the source of the deposit in its bank account on 25/11/2016. We find that the decisions relied upon by the AR are factually distinguishable and thus not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, we find no merits in the findings of the CIT(A) and thus the impugned order is set aside. As the assessee failed to establish beyond doubt with any cogent evidence the nature and source of the cash deposit in its bank account, the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act is affirmed. As a result, grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed. - SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee by : Shri Kunal Agarwal a/w Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Shri Mrinal Agrawal For the Revenue by : Shri P.D. Chogule ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with supporting documentary evidence. The assessee in response thereto submitted that the cash deposit was made out of cash balance available from income earned in cash of Rs. 1,75,00,000 and the said income has duly been offered to tax before the Hon ble Income Tax Settlement Commission ( Hon ble ITSC ). It was further submitted that the assessee was able to find buyers only for 38 acres 5 gunthas and the said income was earned in the assessment year 2012-13, i.e. the year in which the said portion of land was sold. The assessee further submitted that it had earned brokerage income on minor land deals that have been offered to tax before Hon ble ITSC. The AO again issued a show cause notice the assessee was asked to establish the link or nexus between the income offered before the Hon ble ITSC and cash deposited during the demonetisation period. 6. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) vide order dated 15/12/2019, passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and found the same to be vague and not supported by any documentary evidence. The AO further held that the assessee has failed to furnish supporting documents and corroborative evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,92,000/- deposited in the bank account on 25.11.2016 was from the cash of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- available with the appellant. The appellant had already explained this fact before the AO during the assessment proceedings. The availability of the cash of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- and the source of such cash from sale of land and brokerage income has been accepted by the Settlement Commission in the order u/s. 245D(4) dated 30.01.2018. Thus, the finding of fact brought on record by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission cannot be brushed aside in absence of any contrary evidences brought on record by the AO. Thus, the appellant has successfully explained the nature and source of cash of Rs. 1.63,92,000/- in the bank account on 25.11.2016. Accordingly. the addition of Rs. 1,63,92,000/- made by the AO in respect of unexplained cash credit is, therefore, deleted. 5.3.5 As far as the applicability of provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act in respect of addition made u/s. 68 of the Act is concerned, the argument made by the appellant is that the provisions of Sec. 115BBE is not applicable to the cash credit which was offered to tax at a higher rate. The provisions of Sec. 115BBE are attracted once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 11 3,75,000/ 2011 12 3,25,000/ 2012 13 1,52,00,000/ 2013 14 4,00,000/ 2014 15 4,50,000/ 2015 16 3,50,000/ 2016 17 1,50,000/ Total : 1,75,00,000/ 10. After considering the statement of facts, Rule 9 report, reply to Rule 9 report, and further submissions, the Hon ble ITSC accepted that additional income offered by the assessee. It is the claim of the assessee that the said additional income of Rs. 1,75,00,000, which was offered before the Hon ble ITSC is the source of the deposit of cash of Rs. 1,63,92,000. We find that the AO specifically asked the assessee to prove the link or nexus between the aforesaid income offered before the Hon ble ITSC and cash deposited in its bank account on 25/11/2016, during the demonetisation period. However, as evident from the record, despite sufficient opportunity being granted, the assessee could not prove the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
