Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 69 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - Declaration of cash under IDS - cash deposit during the demonetization period - Case selected for scrutiny under the Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) on the issues of ‘large exempt income’ and ‘large value of cash deposits during demonetization period’ - HELD THAT:- It is only when a final certificate is issued in respect of income declared and accepted under IDS, could the same possibly be considered as so in law, while the same is admittedly not available with the assessee even at this stage. No inquiry in the matter was made by the AO, ascertaining its status as the final acceptance of the assessee’s application, other things aside, is of vital significance to it’s explanation as to the nature and source of the cash deposited in his bank account during the relevant previous year w.r.t. the income declared under IDS. More recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dy. CIT v. M.R. Logistics (P.) Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] held that merely because there has been a declaration under IDS, 2016, which in that case was of a related party, the same, unless linked with the impugned receipt, would not prove the same, again emphasizing that the matter, as clarified earlier, is primarily factual, and would therefore stand to be determined on the basis of firm factual findings, found absent in the instant case. We, for the reasons afore-stated, find no reason to interfere. We may also add that our findings may not be, apart from bearing a general character clarifying on the legal as well as the factual aspects, regarded as final, foreclosing the assessee’s case as the same stands set aside for a de novo consideration to the AO, who shall decide the same per a speaking order having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences that may be led or explanations furnished before him. We may before parting with this order also clarify that though the ld. Pr. CIT had called for comments from the incumbent AO, as apparent from his order, his findings are based on his examination of the record and due application of mind, with in fact the comments called for being after eliciting the assessee’s replies dated 27/7/2021 & 25/11/2021, so that no adverse inference arises from the calling of comments from the AO, and are only facilitative. Assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
|