9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in / assessee, the appellant chose not to appear and did not furnish any explanation either before the AO or before the appellate authority i.e. the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, however, the appellant has furnished some explanation in shape of additional documents holding that it is the amount of M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited stating that the amount was collected by him (appellant/assessee) as a recovery agent from its borrowers who were located in naxal affected areas and deposited in his account. However, this explanation, for the reasons mentioned in the shape of affidavit, has not been found to be the reasonable explanation and the ITAT has rightly come to the conclusion that the assessee has failed to substantiate the nature and source of the cash deposits in his bank account. In our considered opinion, the AO CIT (Appeals), NFAC; and the ITAT, all, have concurrently and correctly concluded that the assessee did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 68 r/w Section 69A and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Talwar [ 2010 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the ITAT is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted ex-parte under Section 144 of the IT Act and Rs. 11,44,070/- was treated as the assessee s undisclosed and unexplained income and it was added to the total income of the assessee under Section 68 read with Section 69A of the IT Act by its order dated 21-9-2016. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 21-9-2016, the appellant / assessee preferred an appeal under Section 246A of the IT Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi whereupon the appellant herein / assessee was issued notice on his registered e-mail address to submit written submission, but the appellant despite of four notices issued under Section 250 of the IT Act on 30-12-2020, 7-5-2021, 10-8-2022 14-10-2023 chose not to file written submission and ultimately, the appellate authority i.e. the CIT (Appeals), NFAC, by order dated 23-10-2023 dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Assessing Officer holding that the appellant herein / assessee has failed to substantiate his claim and did not furnish documentary evidence / written submission explaining the nature and source of the cash deposits of Rs. 11.44 lacs in his bank ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the Assessing Officer issued number of notices seeking his explanation as regards the nature and source of the cash deposits, but before the Assessing Officer, the appellant did not chose to appear and remained ex-parte upon which ex-parte order dated 21-9-2016 under Section 144 of the IT Act was passed and Rs. 11,44,070/- was treated as the assessee s undisclosed/unexplained income and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 68 read with Section 69A of the IT Act. On appeal preferred by the appellant before the CIT (Appeals), NFAC under Section 246A of the IT Act, the appellant again did not support his plea to support his points raised in the appeal and 4-6 notices were issued to him on his registered e-mail address to file written submission on the E-Filing Portal, but the appellant did not file any reply. The appellate authority i.e. the NFAC held that the appellant did not furnish any documentary evidences and written submission in spite of various notices issued to him during the appellate proceeding and has failed to explain the nature and source of Rs. 11,44,070/- which was deposited in his account. The ITAT after admitting the additional documents, ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit found in the books; or the explanation offered by the assessees in the opinion of the Assessing Officer is not satisfactory, it is only then the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessees of that previous year. The expression the assessee offers no explanation means where the assessees offer no proper, reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books maintained by the assessees. It is true the opinion of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessees as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion. 10. Similarly, Section 69A of the IT Act provides for unexplained money, etc. and it states as under: - 69A. Unexplained money, etc. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... source of investment. In the present case, the evidence of K. Palanisamy, indicates that even the partners of the firm were fictitious. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal had erred in directing linking up of the deposits with the accounts of M/s V.V. Enterprises. In fact, the directions given by the Tribunal to the AO for such linking up was not even capable of compliance. The onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rested on the persons in whose names the deposit appeared in various banks. In the circumstances, the Department was right in making individual assessments in the hands of the respondent assessee K. Chinnathamban. Similarly, the Department was right in making the individual assessments in the names of other respondent assessees, who are parties to connected civil appeals herein. 13.Finally, in the matter of Vijay Kumar Talwar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 2011 AIR SCW 2158, the Supreme Court held that a finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year, if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing officer, not satisfactory. (See: Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore 1995 Supp (2) SCC 453 : (AIR 1995 SC 2109 : 1995 AIR SCW 3231) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. Mohanakala ). We are of the opinion that on a conspectus of the factual scenario, noted above, the conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee has failed to prove the source of the cash credits cannot be said to be perverse, giving rise to a substantial question of law. The Tribunal being a final fact-finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference therewith by this Court is not warranted. 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, despite number of notices having been issued by the Assessing Officer to exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
