Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 730 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- We note that Ld CIT(A) observed that assessee has objected to the reopening of assessment. But Ld. CIT(A) did not accept, the contention of the assessee. The ld CIT(A) noticed that on the basis of copy of FIR, A.O. had valid reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. However in the FIR, the year of payment was not mentioned. Therefore AO had no option but to reopen the assessment. Hence, the A.O.'s action for reopening the assessment was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). On merits, Ld. CIT(A) noted that so far as bringing the amount mentioned in the FIR is concerned, this cannot be taxed in the assessment year in question as the payment has been made by the assessee, during the previous year 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07. This fact was brought to the notice of the A.O. during the assessment proceedings itself and the same has been mentioned by the. A.O - Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition and also stated in his order that AO is free to take action to bring this amount under taxation in AY 2006-07, if he deems fit. Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- It is a list of 104 persons from whom the assessee has claimed to have received advances amounting ₹ 1,85,00,000. This list is not accompanied by any details; the said list is of no evidentiary value towards explaining of the sources of the said ₹ 1,85,00,000/-. Hence, the Id. AO is correct in his conclusion that the said amount claimed to be advanced by assessee for purchase of land is unexplained investment. Even in the appeal proceedings, the AR has been able to file affidavits in only 29 out of said 104 lenders. There is no corroborative evidence/details to support the assertion made in the said affidavits. AR has not given copy of bank accounts or the income tax details of the said lenders. It is a trite law that in case of unsecured loans in books of account, the primary onus is on the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of lender and genuineness of transaction. However, in the present case, the assessee has not furnished only details to establish the above, in spite of opportunities provided by AO. So the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof, the addition u/s 69 on account of unexplained investments is confirmed. - Decided against assessee.
|