Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1498 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - amount was credited in the books of account of the assessee and he failed to discharge the onus cast upon him -HELD THAT:- As in the case of Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) vs CIT [2014 (7) TMI 47 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that where in respect of huge amount of cash deposited in bank, assessee failed to give list of persons who advanced cash to him along with their confirmations in respect of huge amount of cash deposited in its bank account, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the said amount to assessee’s taxable income u/s 68 of the Act. We find the SLP filed by the assessee against the said order of the Hon'ble High court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2016 (5) TMI 928 - SC ORDER] Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.K. Garg, [2017 (8) TMI 450 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that where the assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits and corresponding payments, he would not be entitled to benefit of peak credit. In other words, the entire bank deposits added by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee that addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of the bank statement is rejected. Argument of the assessee that only commission @ 0.5% should be added and not the entire deposits is concerned, we find the Assessing Officer, while making the addition has followed his order for assessment year 2004-05 in assessee’s own case. The ld.CIT(A) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by following the order of his predecessor in assessee’s own case. We find when the matter travelled to the Tribunal, the Tribunal for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 [2013 (10) TMI 1522 - ITAT DELHI] and [2013 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT DELHI] has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the issue afresh in the light of the direction of the Tribunal and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes.
|