9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he total income at Rs. 1,34,33,150/- as against Rs. 1,76,650/- admitted by the assessee by making the addition of Rs. 1,32,56,500/- being the aggregate of all the cash deposits made during the year under consideration in the savings bank accounts of the assessee in ING Vysya Bank (Rs. 98,12,000/-) and ICICI Bank (Rs. 34,44,500/-). 3. During the assessment proceedings the assessee was confronted with its bank accounts where the aforementioned cash deposits were made by the assessee. In spite of various notices issued by the AO over a span of more than 15 months and opportunities provided to the assessee, there was no compliance from the assessee and did not provide any explanation regarding cash deposits in his own bank accounts. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Venkateswara Rao, S/o Late Sri Thirupathi Rao resident of Madinaguda, Hyderabad who is supposed to be a relative of the assessee and who is said to have used the bank accounts of the assessee for his own business of real estate. The assessee stated that the amounts deposited in the bank account and the amounts withdrawn do not belong to him but to this person. 5. The CIT(A) referring to the provisions of Rule 46A, rejected to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee in the form of affidavit. 5.1 On merits, the CIT(A) referring to the standard terms of opening of bank account, observed that allowing another person to use the accounts is a serious offence as it amounts to abetment both for tax evasion and for concealing the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) erred in not admitting the additional evidence produced without considering the fact that the evidence is required to decide appeal and is relevant for ascertaining the facts. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the appellant was prevented by sufficient reason in not furnishing the said information before the Assessing Officer. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 1,32,56,500 made by the Assessing Officer treating the aggregate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of an affidavit to claim that the deposits made in the assessee's account were belonged to Shri S. Venkateswara Rao, who had confirmed the transactions through an affidavit. He, therefore, prayed that the additional evidence may be accepted and the addition may be deleted. 7.1 Alternatively, the AR submitted that, in case, additional evidence is not entertained by the Hon'ble Bench, there are subsequent withdrawals in the bank account, which signify that they are business transactions. He, therefore, submitted that all the deposits cannot be treated as income instead only profit of the business should be brought on record or peak credit in the bank account may be treated as income of the assessee. 8. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
