Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 115 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s 69 - addition received as "On Money" on sale of agricultural land, shown as such in ITR filed and deposited into bank accounts - HELD THAT:- Sources and genuineness of the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee remained unverified and unsubstantiated. Even before us the assessee merely reiterated the submissions placed before the subordinate authorities and could not place on record any satisfactory reasons regarding such huge cash deposits which were over and above the sale consideration amounts received in cheques. There are plethora of judicial decisions, where the assessee has not been able to explain a particular source of cash, in such circumstances, the assessee has been held liable for tax regarding those unexplained sources of income. In the case Dr. Prakash Tiwari [1983 (4) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] held, where the assessee could not give satisfactory explanation regarding sources of amount then such amount was held assessable as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. In the case of Himmatram Laxminarain [1985 (8) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that in a case where it was found that a secret business was conducted wherein the assessee has invested a certain amount and it was held that such amount was assessable as income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of Deo Narayan Bhadani [1986 (4) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT] wherein certain cash deposits were made in a bank by the karta of the assessee-HUF. The explanation that the source of such deposits was withdrawals from a bigger HUF was found to be false. There was no evidence that the karta had any source of income as an individual. It was held that the amount of such deposits were assessable as income of the assessee-HUF. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah [1994 (11) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the addition made by the A.O as the assessee’s undisclosed income invested in the purchase of jackpot winning ticket - In the case of Bhawarlal C. Bafna [2002 (6) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where the assessee has failed to explain the cash balances in spite of several opportunities, the addition was held justifiable. Income-tax legislation is a welfare legislation and not a penal legislation as such.The tax collected goes on to build the infrastructure of our Nation and therefore, where the tax planning is acknowledged tax avoidance has to be penalised. When a benefit of doubt is given in favour of an assessee, at the same time, where the assessee tries to conceal his income such act has to be brought in the purview of taxation as per law. In the present case before us admittedly, whatever sale consideration the assessee has received they were received in cheques. But in addition to such receipt the assessee has also deposited cash - assessee never explained the source of such cash deposit in his bank accounts. We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the order confirming the addition is upheld. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.
|