Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 930 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147/148 - Information received about undisclosed Crypto currency - AO observed that, bank transactions alone are not sufficient to verify the trade in Crypto currency - HELD THAT:- The impugned order as it reads shows that the authority has recorded a finding that the material evidence to verify the transaction regarding Crypto currency is not placed on record. Even in this petition, the petitioner has not submitted the concerned ledger statements relating to trade in Crypto currency. We find considerable force in the submission of revenue that bank transactions alone are not sufficient to verify the trade in Crypto currency rather, the assessee ought to have submitted before the authority the relevant ledger statement evidencing that he had entered into trade of Crypto currency in the manner as has been asserted by him by way of the information stated by him. Whether it was the volume of the trade which is reflected in the total amount or it was an investment made in the Crypto currency without any withdrawal therefrom would essentially be a matter for consideration upon perusal of the Crypto currency ledger. May be because of this reason, the authority was of the view that the information regarding trade in Crypto currency is not verified. The authority has considered, though in brief, the reply of the petitioner at this stage only for the purpose of deciding whether proceedings u/s 148 should be drawn. In our considered opinion, the exercise which has been undertaken by the authority fulfilled the legal requirement of Section 148(A). Even now it would be open for the assessee to satisfy the authority by submitting the relevant Crypto currency ledger to verify the information as was submitted by him before the Assessing Officer in proceedings under Section 148A of the Act, 1961. We are not inclined to interfere with the order as we do not find that the order is either perverse or lacks jurisdiction so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
|