TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming the addition for the sum of ₹ 1,63,22,223.00 made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an Individual. The assessee in the year under consideration derived his income from salary. The assessee during the year had deposited the cash to the tune of ₹ 1,11,26,300.00 and cheques for the sum of ₹ 51,95,923.00 in his saving bank account no. 00910400008674 maintained with IDBI Bank, C.G. road branch, Ahmedabad. The assessee during the year also issued cheques to the various parties on different dates. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny based on AIR information on account of cash deposited in his bank account. 3.1 However, the assessee neither made any reply to the statutory notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act nor appeared before the AO in response to the notice issued under section 131 of the Act. The AO further collected the details of the parties to whom the assessee issued cheques from the bank by issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y provided advances either from their agricultural income or saving. The assessee in support of his contention files the copies of 7/12 extract and also submitted that some of the loan providers have sold the agricultural lands. 4.3 However the Ld. CIT-A observed that the copies of confirmation were unsigned and also the addresses of the loan providers were not appearing therein. The assessee had not filed copies of the PAN for any of the lender from whom he received loan either in the form of cash or through cheque. 4.4 The Ld. CIT-A also noted that the creditworthiness of the parties from whom the assessee received cash cannot be established based on 7/12 extract as it does not reflect the credibility of the lenders viz a viz the quantum of income. 4.5 Accordingly, the Ld. CIT-A was of the view that the assessee has not discharged his onus to establish the Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the lenders. Thus the Ld. CIT-A in view of the above upheld the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 157 and submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... creditors had not been established, consequently, the question of establishment of the genuineness of the transactions or the creditworthiness of the creditors did not and could not arise. The Tribunal did not apply its mind to the facts of this particular case and proceeded on the footing that since the transactions were through the bank account, it was to be presumed that the transactions were genuine. It was not for the ITO to find out by making investigation from the bank accounts unless the assessee proved the identity of the creditors and their creditworthiness. Mere payment by account payee cheque was not sacrosanct nor could it make a non-genuine transaction genuine. 8.2 Coming to the present facts of the case whether the deposit of cash and cheques represent the unexplained cash credit as envisaged under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. For the better understanding of the case, we are adjudicating the component of cash deposit and cheque deposit separately and independently. 8.3 Regarding the cheque deposits, we note that the assessee has accepted cheques from various parties. However, we find that the assessee has furnished only copy of the account of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O 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. 8.6 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. The details are enclosed on pages 3 to 93 of the paper book. However, on perusal of the details furnished by the assessee we note certain defects as detailed under: i. There was no identity of the party except the form 7/12 which was in vernacular language. However, there was the confirmation filed from the parties which were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
