9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le explanation both before the A.O/CIT(Appeals) as regards the source of the cash deposits in his bank account, therefore, we principally concur with the view taken by them. But it would be incorrect to not consider the fact that the assessee being a 44 years old commerce graduate would have some amount of cash in hand out of his past savings/current years income in his possession, viz. (i) private job with New Creative Fibre; (ii) wholesale business in the name of Suman Combines ; and (iii) past accumulated savings as on the date of making the cash deposits in his bank account. We firm conviction that an amount can safely be held that he would have been in possession of the assessee at the time of depositing of cash in his bank account during the year under consideration. Accordingly,we scale down the addition made by the A.O to Rs. 17.91 lacs [Rs.19.71 lacs (-) Rs. 2 lacs]. Assessee appeal partly allowed. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Deepak Meghani, CA For the Revenue : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o substantiate his claim as regards the availability of the aforementioned amounts, but he failed to do the needful. 4. The A.O based on the information gathered u/s. 133(6) of the Act from State Bank of India, Branch: Goshala Para, Rajnandgaon, observed that the assessee was engaged in private job in New Creative Fibre , Raipur and was also carrying on wholesale business under the name of Suman Combines . The A.O further observed that the assessee had made cash withdrawals from his bank account from different ATMs. As the assessee had failed to comply with the notice issued by the A.O u/s. 142(1) of the Act, therefore, the latter was constrained to proceed with and frame the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. 5. After perusing the bank account of the assessee, the A.O observed that there were cash/credit entries appearing in his bank account aggregating to an amount of Rs. 20,25,758/-(including bank interest of Rs. 26,654/-) and also receipt of interest of Rs. 5,590/- from Union Bank. As the assessee had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation as regards the subject cash deposits, therefore, the A.O held the same as his unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Thereafter, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Oil Mills vs. CIT [(2008) 296 ITR 495] returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. 5.6. It is settled position that the onus is upon the appellant to prove genuineness of each and every transactions entered into. In land mark cases like Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC), Roshan Di Hatti v CIT [1977] 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an appellant, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the appellant and no further burden is on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. 5.7. Based on the above trail of opportunities provided to the appellant, it appears that the assessee is not keen on pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, given that this office has not received any information or document so as to make a judgment based on merits, this office is left with no option but to confirm the addition carried out by the Ld. AO. Further, the appellant has merely filed an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, it could safely be inferred that the investment so made by the assessee were duly sourced out of his past/accumulated savings. 10. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative ( for short DR ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the issue in question i.e. the sustainability of the addition made by the A.O u/s. 69A of the Act of Rs. 19.71 lacs (out of Rs. 20,31,000/-). A perusal of the assessee s bank account No.20151492148 with State Bank of India, Branch: Goshala Para, Rajnandgaon reveals that the assessee had during the subject year made cash deposits of Rs. 19.71 lacs, viz. (i) 30.03.2013: Rs. 1,000/-; (ii) 03.05.2013: 9,70,000/-; and (iii) 21.10.2013: Rs. 10,00,000/-. Ostensibly, the aforesaid cash deposits were thereafter routed by the assessee for making two investments viz. (i) towards purchase of land: Rs. 5,50,000/- and (ii) for purchasing fixed deposits: Rs. 10 lacs. Although it is the claim of the Ld. AR that as the cash deposits in her bank accounts were duly utilized by him for purchase of a land for constructing residential house/ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retion on the Income-tax Officer in the matter of treating the source of an investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee. The Hon ble Apex Court observed that the Income-tax Officer is not obliged to treat the source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory. It was further observed that the question as to whether the source of the investment should be treated as income or not u/s. 69 of the Act has to be considered in the light of the facts of each case. In other words, discretion has been conferred on the Income-tax Officer u/s. 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as the income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory and the said discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 14. As the assessee in the present case before me had failed to come forth with any plausible explanation both before the A.O/CIT(Appeals) as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 19.71 lacs in his bank account, therefore, I principally concur with the view taken b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
