Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 163 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - Onus to prove - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the inaction of the AO for not collecting the details of the parties from whom the assessee has received cheque does not absolve the assessee from furnishing the details of the parties as discussed above. As such, the liability under section 68 of the Act is upon the assessee to justify the source of deposits in the manner described aforesaid. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee failed to discharge his onus under the provisions of section 68 of the Act so far as the cheque deposits in his bank account are concern. Regarding the deposits of cash, we note that the assessee has furnished the list of parties from whom he has accepted the cash in the year under consideration amounting to ₹ 1,11,26,300.00. The assessee also filed the confirmation from the parties along with the copies of 7/12 extract depicting the agricultural land held by such parties. We hold that the assessee failed to discharge his onus imposed under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. We also note that the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Tin Box Co. v/s CIT [2001 (2) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the AO if the assessee has filed additional evidences before the appellate authorities. We note that the Ld. CIT (A) has called for the remand report from the AO two times on the details furnished by the assessee before him. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT (A) evaluated the additional documents filed before him by the assessee and arrived at the conclusion that these documents were not sufficient enough to discharge the assessee from the onus imposed under section 68 - Thus it is not the case that the AO was not afforded the opportunities for his comments on the additional documents filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Tin Box Company v/s CIT (Supra). We hold that the assessee failed to discharge his onus cast upon him under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|