Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 696 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- If the assessee fails to give any explanation of the source and nature of money deposited in his bank account, definitely the provisions of Section 68 of the income tax act applies, as the assessee has failed to discharge initial onus cast upon him. In absence of any evidence, that he is carrying on business as a commission agent, cannot be believed. Even if it is believed, that he is a commission agent, the ignorance of the fact that who is principal, on whose behalf he is working, is not known to the assessee or he is not disclosing, it clearly shows that addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee as there is no explanation about the source and nature of credits - Addition on account of unexplained cash credit being cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee confirmed. Claim of the assessee to grant the benefit of peak credit - No substantial the argument in view of the decision in case of CIT versus DK Garg [2017 (8) TMI 450 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it is held that that where an assessee was unable to explain the sources of deposits and the corresponding payments , he was not entitled to get the benefit of “peak credit”. If the assessee, had wanted to avail of the benefit of the “peak credit”, he ought to have disclosed all the facts within his knowledge concerning the credit entries in the accounts. He had to explain with sufficient details the sources of all the deposits in his accounts as well as the corresponding destinations of all payments from the accounts. He should have been able to show that the money had been transferred through banking channels, from whom to his bank account, the identity of the creditors and that the money paid from the accounts of the assessee. The assessee had to discharge the primary onus in that regard. The peak credit worked out by the assessee, on the basis that the principle of peak credit applied, notwithstanding the failure to explain each of the sources of the deposits and the corresponding destinations of the payments without squaring them off, was not permissible - Decided against assessee.
|