TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity or otherwise, by bringing on record cogent material. As also observed that the assessee has deposited cash in its ICICI Bank account on various occasions, and onus is very heavy on assessee to explain these cash deposits. It is for the assessee to substantiate its state of affairs and income which is chargeable to tax. If the assessee fails to discharge its primary onus, then Revenue has all the right to bring to tax unexplained credits, money as well investments. It is equally true that the correct income which is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the 1961 Act, is to be brought to tax for the correct assessment year in the hands of correct assessee. The authorities also must assist assessee in all reasonable ways, so that correct income chargeable to tax under the provision of the 1961 Act is brought to tax for correct assessment year in the hands of correct assessee. Reference is drawn to circular number 14 of 1955, dated 11.4.1955 issued by CBDT. Thus, after considering the entire material on record, I restore the matter back to the file of AO for denovo assessment on merit, in accordance with law - we clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2012 incorporated in the assessment order also shows that in para 3 the I.C.I.C.I. bank has been mentioned. The learned ITO in his remand report has erred in mentioning that only one bank account of S.B.I. has been disclosed at the time of assessment and has erred in mentioning that the desire of disclosing I.C.I.C.I. Bank before Ld. C.I.T.(A) is not a matter of additional evidence. The remand report was not sent to the appellant for his comment. 4 Because the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in considering the same bank account of 1.C.I.C.I.for making uncalled for enhancement of those investments made from the same bank account treating unexplained investment. The learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in mentioning that the appellant has not given information regarding the taxability of mutual fund investment which have matured during the year. 5. Because the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant regarding the credit of 1,25,877/- which was closure proceeds of S/B A/C of City Bank, which was running at Delhi when the appellant was posted at Gajraula. He got it closed and got the proceeds transferred in this I.C.I.C.I. Bank A/C. The statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to that effect is produced. The AO also observed that capital account submitted by assessee is also not reliable as the IDBI Flexibonds, House Loans, PPF Balance were not disclosed by the assessee in the said capital account. The AO also observed that opening balance of capital is also not verifiable , as there is no evidence produced by assessee to that effect. The AO observed that the assessee has not substantiated opening balance with evidence and hence AO observed that there are no reasons to believe that the assessee has purchased Mutual Funds with known sources of income. The Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid investment of Rs.4.00 lacs in Mutual Funds during financial year 204-05 , as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act , which stood added by AO to the income of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 06.03.2013 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by aforesaid assessment framed by AO, the assessee filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) not only confirmed the addition as were made by AO, but also enhanced the income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that there are certain investments which has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but was made to justify only the point of query raised during the assessment proceedings. The appellant had deliberately concealed the investment made by him. Even the investment made in the Government of India bond was not disclosed by the appellant. The appellant had submitted that he did not received any interest or dividend during the year under consideration vide his reply dated 10/12/2012 made before the AO during the course of assessment proceeding. A perusal of the bank statement shows that the appellant had received Rs. 6.20 lacs as maturity amounts from various mutual funds. The appellant had failed to submit details regarding the period of holding of such mutual funds and the amount of capital gains payable on such investment. A perusal of computation of income shows that the appellant had not disclosed the interest received during the year. Whereas a perusal of the bank statement shows that interest income was received on the sweep FDR s made through the bank account. The appellant has not submitted the bank statement pertaining to the bank account held by him with the State Bank of India and all the above transactions are independent to the transaction m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant, accordingly the funds received by the appellant are treated as unexplained money and added to the income of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by aforesaid appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before the tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee opened arguments before the tribunal, and submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened by Revenue u/s 148 of the 1961 Act, on the basis of information that the assessee has purchased Mutual Funds. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that additions were made by Assessing Officer on the basis of allegation of undisclosed investments of Rs.4.00 lacs. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these investments were made out of redemption of the old investments made by assessee in earlier years. The Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the additions. It was submitted that assessee filed application dated 21.09.2005 under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 before ld. CIT(A) , wherein bank statement of ICICI Bank was submitted before ld. CIT(A), which earlier could not be produced before the AO. It was submitted that bank statement of SBI acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as General Manager(Engineering) in 1994, at Gajraula. Thereafter, he claimed that he retired in 2002 and joined Aurbindo Pharma Limited at Hyderabad as Professional Engineer. The assessee also claimed that since 1998, he was filing return of income and for the ay:2000-01 to 2004-05 , he filed return of income of Rs. 26 lacs. The assessee claimed that even after considering personal expenses, he must be having Rs. 6 lacs in bank accounts and in cash, as on 01.04.2004. The assessee claimed that he filed return of income for impugned assessment year declaring income of Rs. 1,66,388/- and he invested Rs. 4 lacs during the relevant period in Mutual Fund out of past savings and current year income. The explanation did not found favour with AO, who made additions to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs with respect to investments made in Mutual Funds as unexplained money u/s 69A , as sources of these investment could not be explained by the assessee, before the AO. The matter reached ld. CIT(A) at the behest of the assessee.The assessee had three bank accounts namely with SBI, ICICI and Citi Bank. The assessee did not produce ICICI Bank and Citi Bank account , before the AO. But the assessee produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lain all the transactions in the bank statements and other details required by the AO, so that correct income which is chargeable to tax under the provisions of 1961 Act can be brought to income-tax. The ld. Counsel has stated before me that the assessee will provide complete details with AO , so that correct income chargeable to income-tax as per provisions of the 1961 Act, can be brought to tax. The ld. Sr.DR has also submitted that Revenue has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of AO for denovo assessment. Keeping in view entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that primary onus is on the assessee to bring cogent evidences to substantiate its contentions whether the amount was invested during the year out of redemption of old Mutual funds or as to exemption of dividend/interest income received by the assessee. The primary onus is on the assessee to bring on record cogent evidences , so that correct income chargeable to income-tax within the provisions of the 1961 Act, is brought to income-tax. It is equally true that if the assessee has made investments in preceding years out of his tax paid known sources, merely redemption of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
