Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 833 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT:- Assessee has not filed return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, based on the AIR, the AO has found cash deposits in the bank account by the assessee, and non-filing of return by the assessee made the AO to invoke section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As rightly stated by the ld.DR, we do not find any infirmity in the reason recorded by the AO in the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act Valid service of 148 notice - The assessee in its written submissions has clearly admitted that “assessee had received notice from Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patna". Further, copy of the notice produced in the additional documents clearly showed that this notice has been received by the assessee’s wife by subscribing her signature as well as cell-phone number. Further, 148-notice was issued on the same address as shown in the Form no.35 and 36 filed by the assessee. Therefore, the assesee’s claim that notice remained unserved on him is without any basis, and the same is rejected and the additional ground raised by the assessee, in this regard, are hereby dismissed. Unexplained cash deposits in the bank account - contention of the assessee that two saving bank accounts in HDFC bank did not belong to the assessee is not acceptable. Two accounts found to be jointly held by the assessee and his wife. In response to the summons, the Bank Manager furnished visible photo of the account holder, which prima facie establish that account holder was present at the time of opening of the bank account, and it is crystal clear that the assessee is the same person, who is holding two bank accounts jointly with his wife. Furthermore, even assuming for a moment that SB account does not belong to the assessee, the assessee has not filed any FIR against the so-called forged bank account. Further, in the order-sheet dated 16.12.2015, the assessee’s representative has accepted that the bank accounts wherein cash deposited, which are nothing but belongs to the assessee only. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the bank account are not belongs to him is not proved with proper evidence. Therefore, this ground is also required to be rejected. Assessee appeal dismissed.
|