9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hands of the assessee when he has in a statement recorded that he has not done this transaction - AO is not justified in holding that bank account belonged to the appellant. The AO has not done dud diligence to cross verify the 15CA/CB forms, allegedly issued by the appellant. This forms involves three parties who are (i) The remitter, (ii) The Chartered Accountant (iii) The Bank officer. Once the appellant denied these forms all together, the AO must have summonded the Bank officer and CA who have signed these forms which AO failed. Appellant has satisfactorily proved that these bank accounts were not opened by him and only his name and KYC were used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for opening these bank accounts. Thus, financial, transactions appearing / credited in these bank accounts do not represent the appellant, the additions made on account on peak Balance.AO while re- opening the case of Shri Bharat Bomb wherein it has been accepted that the cash deposited in the case of the assessee [ Shri Pradeep Nimawat ] is done by Shri Bharat Bomb and not by the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee. - DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out from the records is that the assessee is individual and derives income from construction business. The assessee filed ROI on 02.07.2011 declaring therein total income of Rs. 3,89,070/-. The assessee has shown income from business of Rs. 4,89,072/- and claimed deduction under chapter VI of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The ROI was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 29.12.2011. 5.1 Information has been received from Syndicate Bank, M. I. Road, Subhash Marg, C-scheme Jaipur in this case. Therefore, the a notice for providing information under section 133(6) of the Act was issued vide letter dated 12.12.2017 during the course of assessment proceeding for A. Y. 2015-16 in the instant case. The ld. AO noted that huge cash aggregating to Rs. 1,23,26,000/- deposited during the financial year 2010-11 in the assessee s bank account no. 84501010007333 at Syndicate Bank, Udaipur. Further as per information gathered from ITS details it is noticed that cash aggregating to Rs. 45,75,000/- also deposited in the assessee s bank account no. 7721130000000 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Udaipur. On perusal of relevant documents available on record, it was noticed that the assessee has shown income from business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of section 144 of the IT Act.1961 and the assessee was required to show cause as to why he may not be taxed as per the provisions of IT Act, 1961 on the basis of details/information and material available with this office. However, no compliance has been made by the assessee of such notices. 5.4 The assessee was requested to submit the details of cash deposited, genuineness of transactions, source of fund and relevant supporting evidences in respect of particulars of income and other information available on record but the assessee has not replied the same. The return of income filed by his personal ID and digitally signed. The digital signature must be obtained by assessee after submitting required documents of identity and further necessary verification. All the related transactions appeared in his name or his bank account and his signature were made on the relevant documents and his documents of identity used for opening of bank accounts, Since the assessee neither attended nor submitted any reply. This shows that the assessee has nothing to say but to accept the findings as pointed out on the basis of documents and information available on record. 5.5 The ld. AO noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, it is evident that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding cash deposits in the Bank accounts. In absence of any evidence and failure to produce any reply, details or documents, the total cash deposited of Rs. 1,69,01,000/- in the bank accounts is held to be unexplained credit from undisclosed sources within meaning under the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,000/-under chapter VI-A in the return of income but no details or documentary evidences furnished in this regard. Therefore, Rs. 1,00,000/- is disallowed and added to the total income for the year under consideration treating bogus expenses/investment for claiming deduction. 6. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: 5.0 I have perused the assessment order and the appeal documents filed by the assessee. In this case the appellant had file the ROI on 02.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 4,89,072/-. The AO noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is life with lot of struggle, he could file reply to various notices and assessment was completed with following huge addition u/s 144 vide order dated 22.02.2018 : -Income on account deposit in Bank u/s 68- Rs 1,69,01,000/- -Disallowance of Rs 1,00,000/- of deduction claimed u/s 80C. 6. Being aggrieved by these addition first appeal was filed before CIT Appeal which has following grounds : 1. That the Learned AO has erred in completing assessment under section 144. Learned AO has not provided sufficient opportunity and passed order with out appreciating facts in proper perspective, hence order passed is bad in law and be quashed. 2. That the learned AO has added Rs 1,69,01,000/- of cash deposited by the appellant in Syndicate Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce without giving any reason and following provision of law , without considering fact sand circumstances of the case and providing full opportunity. The addition made is without fully considering facts, circumstances of the case and providing full opportunity and following provision of law ,hence the addition made be deleted. 3. That the Learned AO has erred in disallowing deduction of Rs 100000 claimed by the appellant unders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Nitin Parikh and Pradeep Nimawat for A Y 2013-14. g) Copy of Assessment Order of Bharat Bomb for AY 2016-17 in which Bharat Bomb s confirmation of fact that he misused name of assessee for his own benefitand it is he who operated these bank accounts is recorded. h) Copy of CIT Appeal order in case of Deepak Wahi in which in on similar facts and circumstance it was held that Mr. Bharat Bomb operated these account and additions cannot be sustained in the hands of assessee. i) Copy of ITAT Order of Honourable Jodhpur ITAT in ITA/263/Jodhpur/2023 and ITA/264/Jodhpur/2023 in case of Nitin Parikh in which additions made in the hands of assessee is deleted which were made on similar facts and circumstances. j) Copy of Debt Recovery Tribunal Order in case of Canara Bank vs M.s Shrinath Traders (sole Proprietor Pradeep Nimawat) k) Copy of Statement of Pradeep Nimawat Recorded before ED/CBI l) Copy of Reasons Recorded for Assessment Year 2011-12 3. We are submitting back ground of the case as under : GENERAL In the month of Feb March 2016 big fraud of Rs 2000 crore was unearthed and several persons including DGM, Branch Manager and officers of Syndicate Bank and one chartered accounta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inflate income of these persons by providing professional receipts, higher interest receipts on FDR made in the name of these persons from out of proceed of loans and them refinancing the same by obtaining bank overdrafts. Further he used these KYC documents in getting digital signature of these persons, which in turn was used by him and his staff for validating Income Tax Return and Companies Act Return. He has also filed return of these persons disclosing income from interest (not fully) , by setting interest on OD against FDR against this income, and using 44AD mode for declaring business income and used interest paid on these fictitious house loan as an allowable deduction. He used all these Fake bank accounts for obtaining loans from bank by using fabricated title deed of various existing and non- existing properties, discounting of cheques of non-existing government departments and private parties, discounting fake Letter of Credit of various banks. Besides this he also created large no of sale deed of immovable properties for high values (though incomplete) and raised housing loans against this. He used all funds so generated in financing various projects and persons and ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terprises, Shree Sai Metal Industries, Ram Narayan Exports, Aravali Material Trading, Raj Prakhar Enterprises, Urvashi Material Trading Co (P) Limited, Ashok Material Suppliers ,Naveen Construction Co, Shubh Metal Industries, Everest Construction Civil Works, Jai Shankar Impex, Arihant Financial Services, Fair Deal Trade Industries ,Jain Traders, Keshariya Metal Industries , Lucky Trade Industries, Raj Minerals, Janhavi Construction Co, Rameshwaram Material Trading Co.(P) Ltd, Nakoda Construction Co., Shri Ram Exim Trade, Shri Nath Exim Trade, Laxmi Trading Co., Radhika Enterprises, Friends Timber, Babel Construction, Target Handi Crafts, B.K. Builders, Deepak Traders, VK Enterprises, Kiran Buildtech, Urvashi Minerals, Narayan Bhil, BMR Construction, Tanvi Digitech etc. 4. In response to notice from CBI/ED, Mr. Pradeep Nimawat informed that these account were not opened or operated by him and CBI may take whatever action regarding this, he has no objection. 5. As remaining other bank accounts have no balance, ED could not recover any amount from those accounts. 6. It is respectfully submitted that Learned AO even after coming to knowledge of facts and submission of the appellant th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sused his documents like driving licence, Aadhar, PAN etc. and fraudulently used the assessee s name and PAN No. for opening bank account to defraud banks. The appellant has furnished copy of FIR lodged by the ED/CBI against Mr Bharat Bomb wherein his confessional statement is recorded asserting that the name of persons whose KYC were used for opening fake firms, opening bank accounts and doing fake transactions are his family members. The appellanthas claimed that he submitted all details before the AO and requested him to call Mr. Bharat Bomb for cross examination; however no action was taken by the AO. The appellant has further stated that Mr. Bharat Bomb already arrested by CBI/ED and various inquiries are going on against him and he himself confessed that he misused KYC documents in opening various bank fraudulent bank accounts in assessee s name. The appellant has further submitted that he filed a civil suit against Syndicate Bank, whose officer allowed these fraudulent activities. The appellant has submitted that he has not claimed credit for Tax Deducted at Source in his return of income. The appellant has vehemently denied rendering any professional service to anyone inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses, by adjudicating authority, though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which made impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The precise observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court is as under:- Not allowing the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d bench of the CESTAT in Kush Constructions v. CGST [2020] 118 taxmann.com 164, in the context of the demand raised on the basis of difference found in figures reflected in ST-3 returns and Form 26AS, held that the Revenue cannot raise the demand on the basis of such difference without examining the reasons for said difference and without establishing that the entire amount received by the appellant, as reflected in said returns in the Form 26AS, being consideration for services provided and without examining whether the difference was because of any exemption or abatement, since it is not legal to presume that the entire differential amount was on account of consideration for providing services. Likewise the Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in Mercury Car Rentals (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2019] 71 ITR (Tri.) (SN) 78 held that based on Form 26AS alone, no additions can be made. This can at best be a starting point for necessary verification but it cannot, on standalone basis, justify the impugned addition . The Hon ble Chennai Bench A in the case of P. K. Rajasekar vs. ITO 2016] 74 taxmann.com 151 (Chennai - Trib.) held that where assessee claimed that there was wrong credit entry by payer-cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s allowed. b) Regarding addition in Interest Income on Account of amount reflected in Form 26AS : 5.1 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant s submissions. The AO noted that ITS data pertaining to F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17 showed that the assessee received the interest income on FDRs at Rs. 11,71,206/- and the TDS thereon at Rs. 1,14,292/- u/s 194A of the Act. The assessee stated, before the AO, that he had not opened any FDR account in Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank and he further stated that he had no relation to aforesaid accounts. However, the AO was not convinced with the assessee s reply. The AO stated that information about every credit of income and tax deducted thereon was communicated to the assessee electronically from time to time and the assessee neither filed any complain nor informed the appropriate authority if the act was fraudulently done by others on behalf of the assessee on PAN based account. In the written submissions uploaded, on the ITBA Portal, the appellant has submitted that as these accounts were not opened by the appellant himself, then his mobile number and email-id also must not be there and as communicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much importance by stating that information about every credit of income and tax deducted thereon was communicated to the assessee electronically from time to time and the assessee neither filed any complaint nor informed the appropriate authority if the act was fraudulently done by others on behalf of the assessee on PAN based account. In this regard, it is noticed that these bank accounts were opened by misusing the appellant s name and KYC details, obviously culprit Mr. Bharat Bomb gave his or his relatives mobile no. and email Id. A person doing something wrong would never give such correct details of person whose name and KYC are used for this purpose. When the appellant has no communication regarding opening of FD, details of interest credit, maturity, etc. how he could know about this fraud. Moreover, the very fact of the appellant s acceptance before the Bank Authorities and Authorities of ED/CBI only goes to prove that the appellant never ever claimed these FD and interest credit therein as his belonging or income. In fact the appellant, as soon as came to know about the fact that his name and KYC details were used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for opening bank accounts, has denied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into an 'income' only because payer of sum deducts tax on same under misconception of law - Held, yes - Assessee, administrator of estate of NRI in India, entered into development agreement with a company named F to construct buildings upon land belonging to NRI against 12 per cent sale price of said construction - Due to some disputes, assessee terminated said agreement and approached Bombay High Court for restitution of property in original form - Bombay High Court issued directions to F to maintain account of amounts collected as sales consideration and deposit same in designated account and to make FDs out of same -Assessing Officer observed that FDs with Indian Bank made by F did not belong to assessee and as such interest on FDs made did not constitute its income - However, Commissioner revised said order holding that interest on FDRs by Indian Bank. In view of the facts discussed above and judicial precedents cited supra, it is held that the AO is not justified in holding that the bank account, wherein interest income on FDRs at Rs. 11,71,206/- credited, is belonged to the appellant. The appellant has satisfactorily proved that these bank accounts were not opened ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken by AO. The appellant has pointed out that Mr. Bharat Bomb himself confessed that he created aforesaid Deepak Traders for obtaining various credit facilities from bank by using KYC of appellant. Considering the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant s written submissions, I am inclined to agree with the appellant s claim. As in the instant case, it is already established that Mr. Bharat Bomb misused name / KYC for opening fake firms, opening bank accounts and doing fake transactions. These facts get support from the confessional statement of Mr. Bharat Bomb recorded before the ED/CBI, copy of which is supplied, by the appellant, in his written submissions. This very fact was before the AO; however, he did not give much importance by stating that the appellant failed to furnish any detail regarding transactions appearing in these bank accounts . The information on scam is also in public domain from where the AO could have taken some cue. However, from the facts and details brought on record, it is clear that the appellant has not formed any firm in the name and style of Deepak Traders because the appellant already got one registered sole proprietorship firm in the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be set aside - Held, yes[Para 50][In favour of assessee] 6.4. Similarly, the Hon ble ITAT Delhi Bench C in the case of Addl. CIT vs. JatindraMehra [2021] 128 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.) held that to identify a beneficial owner of an asset, said person should have nexus, direct or indirect to source of asset and he must have provided funds for said asset; mere account opening form of an overseas bank account where assessee was mentioned as beneficial owner of account, mentioning details of his passport as an identification document, did not necessarily, in absence of any other corroborative evidence of beneficial ownership of assessee over asset, lead to taxability in hands of assessee under Black Money Act. In the instant case of appellant, there are no other corroborative evidence of beneficial ownership of assessee over money/financial transactions reflected in the bank accounts, which were opened fraudulently by misusing the appellant s name and details. 6.5. It is pertinent to mention here that the Mr. Bharat Bomb s case for the AY 2013-14 was reopened and the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fraud was done over a period of more than four year sand it is estimated that 157 accounts were used and defrauded the Bank by resorting to Discount of Fake cheques, discount of fake inland bills and arranging overdraft limits against non-existent LIC policies. These fraudulent transactions were done deliberately and with dishonest intention to siphon off the funds of the Bank for illegal personal gains. The amount has been remitted to accounts maintained at Union Bank of India, Sukhadia Circle Branch, Fatehpura Branch and Udaipur Main Branch. Apart from this, remittances have gone to other 29 banks covering various branches to places like Agra, Indore, Kolkata, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc. Records showed that the Total Income declared by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14, through return of income filed on 26/03/2014, was Rs. 8,11,450/-. This does not commensurate with the huge amount transactions carried out by the assessee. The assessee has not submitted explanation regarding transactions, deposits and credits in various bank account in the Syndicate bank. . 5. During initial verification carried out by the Income Tax Department, statements were recorded from the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had indulged in fraudulent transactions by way of discounting fake cheques, discounting fake bills, creating overdrafts against non- existent LIC policies etc. during financial years extending from 2011-2 to 2016-17 and the total of such transactions amounted to Rs. 1000,63,24,000/- (approximately Rs 1000.63 crores). The year under verification through notice issued u/s 148 on 30/06/2022 is for the assessment year 2013-14, representing the financial year 2012-13. The data and information available on record have been verified and the break-up of details shows that there had been transactions by way of creating overdrafts against non-existing LIC policiesin the name of customers and generating income through receipts/credits. During the financial year 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14, the following transactions have taken place: Branch BIC Branch Type of transaction Custome rinvolved Date oftrans action Amou ntinvo lved 8450 Syndicate Bank, OD against LIC PradeepNima wt 28/01/2013 2,50,00,000 Udaipur policy 8450 Syndicate Bank, Ud ai pur OD againstLIC policy Mahendra Mehwal 28/01/2013 1,75,00,000 8450 Syndicate Bank, Udai pur OD againstLIC policy PiyushDh ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Azad Const. Work, TUFA, Jay Shri Krishna Exim Traders, Sai Copper House, Sai Construction, Kothari Enterprises, Shree Sai Metal Industries, Ram Narayan Exports, Aravali Material Trading, Raj Prakhar Enterprises, Urvashi Material Trading Co.(P) Ltd., Ashok Material Suppliers, Naveen Construction, Shubh Metal Industries, Everest Construction Civil works. Jai Shankar Impex, Arihant Financial Services, Fairdeal Trade Industries, Jain Traders, Keshariya Metal Industries, Lucky Trade Industries, Raj Minerals, Janhavi Construction Com, Rameshwaram Material Trading Co. (P) ltd., Nakoda Construction Co., Shriram Exim Trade, Shri Nath Exim Trade, Laxmi Trading Co., Radhika Enterprises, Friends Timber, Babel Construction, Target Handicrafts, B.K. Builders, Deepak Traders. VK Enterprises, Kiran Buildtech, Urvashi Minerals, Narayan Bhil, BMR Construction, Tanvi Digitech etc. iii) On being ask as how he was monitoring transactions of so many firms he stated that on daily basis he was getting information from the bank as to how much amount was required to be deposited against outstanding CDD/Bill's discounting and other loans and accordingly cash was withdrawn from the bank and as when requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, where there is no such any direct relevancy of the returned income. The ld. DR also not able to submit any documents or evidence related to direct nexus of the returned income of the assessee with the real income. The fact that big fraud was happened, the assessee was victimized by the group of people. We take rationale view, and the additions are duly deleted. In our considered view, the assessment order is itself erroneous due to absence of proper verification and cross verification related to addition during assessment. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order and the assessment order is quashed. 10. In order to further explain how bank officers and Mr. Bharat Bomb misuse the name of appellant and other persons we are submitting copies of following orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal Jaipur : a) Canara Bank Vs Nakoda Construction Co (Sole Proprietor Pradeep Nimawat OA No 84 of 2018 This is a proprietorship firm formed by Bharat Bomb using name of Appellant Pradeep Nimawat a loan of Rs 25.86 Crore was raised. Outstanding on the date OA was Rs 15.44 Crore. Page 3 Para 10. The matter where the credit facilityas claimed in the O.A. in favor of the defendants and the defendants fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p Pradeep Nimawat) 361 364 11 Copy of Statement Recorded at CBI/ED of Pradeep Nimawat 9. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission particularly drawn our attention the order of the debt recovery tribunal order dated 18.11.2022 wherein the DRT in the recovery petition filed by the Canara Bank for an amount of Rs. 25,86,22,917/- against the assessee observed that [ assessee paper book page(APB) 363 ] para 10- The most alarming document is Demand and Promissory note at Annexure A-23 of the application which bears signatures of Shri Pradeep Nimavat but the entire details are missing in the Demand Promissory Note, Annexure A-23 . Para 11. - Similar is the position of Annexure A-24 Hypothecation Agreement running from page no 35 to 54 and this agreement is completely bank even the name of the borrower, the account sanctioned details of the hypothetical, details of stock, the rate of interest etc., is not mentioned. Para 14- After having perused the documents, I am of the considered view that the demand and promissory note and the hypothecation agreement at Annexure A/23 A/24 are completely blank document so, for this fault only the bank officers are responsib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where opened by Shri Bharat Bomb in his name by adopting fraud tactics in obtaining his documents. 5. I have carefully examined the facts of the instance case and also carefully pursued the relevant documents obtained from the concerned bank; i.e. bank statements, bank account opening forms, KYC etc., it is indeed true that Shri Bharat Bomb, the assessee found indulge in the Syndicate Bank scheme and has been sentenced to imprisonment on account of his indulgement of Syndicate Bank scam. On deep examination / verification of the fact of the case and material available in this office and after properly applying mind it has been concluded that the assessee has made total cash deposits of □2,46,90,000 in the saving bank accounts opened by him in the name of Shri Pradeep Nimawat in the bank branches of Oriental Bank of Commerce and Syndicate Bank. 9.1 Based on the above reasons so recorded when the ld. AO has categorically after obtaining all the information formed a view that the total cash deposit of Rs. 2,46,90,000/- made in the account of the assessee is made by Shri Bharat Bomb there is no reason as to why the lower authority intend to tax the same amount in the hands of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Bomb was the key person and master mind of this fraud. In support of the contentions so raised the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following documents in support of the various grounds so raised in this appeal: a) Copy of Order of ED b) Copy of Statement Recorded before ED/CBI of Bharat Bomb c) Copy of Note on Bharat Bomb s Statement d) Copy of Reasons Recorded in case of Bharat Bomb by the AO for reopening of Case u/s 147. e) Copy of Assessment Order of Bharat Bomb For A Y 2011-12 f) Copy of Order in case of Bharat Bomb for in which it is mentioned that case is reopened only to meet contingency of adverse decision of higher authorities in case of Nitin Parikh and Pradeep Nimawat for A Y 2013-14. g) Copy of Assessment Order of Bharat Bomb for AY 2016-17 in which Bharat Bomb s confirmation of fact that he misused name of assessee for his own benefit and it is he who operated these bank accounts is recorded. h) Copy of CIT Appeal order in case of Deepak Wahi in which in on similar facts and circumstance it was held that Mr. Bharat Bomb operated these account and additions cannot be sustained in the hands of assessee. i) Copy of ITAT Order of Honourable Jodhpur ITAT in ITA/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the facts discussed above and judicial precedents cited supra, it is held that the AO is not justified in holding that bank account no. xxxx of Syndicate bank, A/c no. xxx of Syndicate Bank and A/c no. xxxx of Canara Bank, belonged to the appellant. The AO has not done dud diligence to cross verify the 15CA/CB forms, allegedly issued by the appellant. This forms involves three parties who are (i) The remitter, (ii) The Chartered Accountant (iii) The Bank officer. Once the appellant denied these forms all together, the AO must have summonded the Bank officer and CA who have signed these forms which AO failed. On the other hand, the appellant has satisfactorily proved that these bank accounts were not opened by him and only his name and KYC were used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for opening these bank accounts. Thus, financial, transactions appearing / credited in these bank accounts do not represent the appellant, the additions made at Rs. 6,99,10,134/- on account on peak Balance (A/c no. xxxx of Syndicate Bank, Rs. 4,99,40,698/- on account of peak balance (A/c no. xxxx of synidicate bank ) Rs. 2,48,013/- on account of peak balance (A/c no. xxxx ) of Canara Bank are directed to be deleted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
