Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 887 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the assessment framed u/s. 147 - Unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee - assessee challenging the reopening was that the reasons recorded by the A.O. were not sufficient for the formation of belief of escapement of income - HELD THAT:- There can be no iota of doubt that there was sufficient information for the formation of belief of escapement of income, with the assessee having been found to have deposited substantial cash in his bank account which could neither be explained by any return of income filed by the assessee ,which he had evidently not filed and nor had the assessee offered any explanation of the same in the course of enquiries conducted by the A.O. The cash deposits therefore were found to be unexplained by the A.O. and it was this information which logically and rightfully led to the formation of belief of escapement of income. The contention of the assessee therefore regarding the insufficiency of reasons for formation of belief of escapement of income needs to be out rightly rejected. The source of cash deposit remaining unexplained by the assessee, the formation of belief of escapement of income on account of the same was justified and as a consequence, the initiation of reassessment proceedings also. No other arguments challenging the validity of reopening the case were made before us. We reject the contention of the assessee challenging the validity of reopening in the present case u/s. 147 of the Act. Unexplained cash deposits - Assessee explanation that the bank account was infact being operated by his employer, we find was evidenced by the narration in the entries in the bank account reflecting the name of his employer, the brokerage firm of which he was an agent i.e. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. and his purported relatives. We have noted that almost entirely all the withdrawals in this bank account by cheque related to these aforesaid persons only while there were few withdrawals in cash also - whatever amount was deposited in this account was withdrawn either in the name of the asseesses employer, his brokerage firm which he was an agent or for the benefit of his relatives. The explanation of the assessee therefore that his bank account was being operated by his employer appears to be justified on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The onus stood shifted to the Revenue to prove otherwise. It was incumbent on the Revenue to have examined the evidences, make necessary inquiries from the employer of the assessee, Mr.Prakash Mirani, and also from the bank and only thereafter on finding these evidences to be of no consequence ,the onus to justify his explanation with further evidences would have shifted to the assessee. The Revenue, on the contrary, we find insisted on further evidences from the assessee without even considering that filed by the assessee or pointing out why they were not relevant. In the present case, the assessee having sufficiently evidenced his explanation regarding the nature of cash deposits and the revenue being unable to controvert the same, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the explanation of the assessee and upholding the addition of cash deposits - Assessee appeal partly allowed.
|