Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1391 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained deposits in the bank account - deemed deposits in the bank account end income of assessee - addition u/s 69 - Held that:- Assessment order that more than 10 opportunities have been given to the assessee for joining the assessment proceedings, however, the assessee did not co-operate in the assessment proceedings and finding no option, the Assessing Officer was considered to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act on the basis of information and material available on record. As the assessee has failed to offer any explanation in respect of cash deposit of ₹ 31,15,000/- in his saving account No.4512 maintained by him with the Allahabad Bank, Fazilka on 06.01.2009, therefore, the value of the deposit of ₹ 31,15,000/- was treated as income of the assessee for the year under consideration u/s 69. Even otherwise, Sec.69A further clarifies about the unexplained money and crux of that Section reflects that the money and value of the billion, jewellery or other valuable article, if assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the Assessing Officer satisfactory then the same may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Referring to alternative plea of the assessee that one of the friend namely Sh. Sukhdev Singh of the assessee has sold his agricultural land for an amount of ₹ 16,30,000/- which was given by him to the assessee for safe keeping in his bank account on 06.01.2009 and the same was returned on 20.01.2009 does not sounds to be satisfactory explanation the explanation offered by the assessee suffers from serious discrepancies and improbabilities because from the statement of Sh. Sukhdev Singh itself shows that the land was sold on 25th June, 2008, however, the consideration amount alleged to be given only on 6th January, 2009 and there is a gap of approximately seven months and even otherwise Sh. Shukhdev Singh was neither the owner of the property nor entitled to retain the money, therefore, giving to the assessee after seven months of the sale does not in any case seems to be probable. Hence, on the aforesaid consideration and analayzation, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of investment in the form of deposit in bank account, which would entail deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year under consideration. - Decided against assessee
|