TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Tejinder Pal Singh. DR ORDER PER BENCH : The appeal is filed by the revenue and cross objection(C.O.) is filed by the assessee against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 48, Mumbai passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-48, Mumbai had erred in deleting the addition of Rs.51,19,959/- on account of balance in the foreign bank account ignoring the fact that the information about the foreign bank account was received by the Government of India and the bank account was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai had erred in allowing assessee's claim thereby causing the bank balance to be taxed in subsequent assessment years and not in the present assessment years. 2. The brief facts of case that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, house property, business and profession, capital gains and other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2006-07 on 31.10.2006 with a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only. The AO has dealt on the facts with respect to the amount lying in the bank account and also statement recorded under section 131 of the Act on 18.10.2013 referred at page 5 to 7 of the assessment order and the AO has observed and made an addition at page 9 of the order as under: 1. During the course of enquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, many assessees have accepted that they own the bank accounts as mentioned in the Base Notes related to them. Certain assessees have paid the taxes also on the amount mentioned in the Base Note against their undisclosed bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. 2. Various assessees have submitted the statements of their accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva also. 3. In various other cases, where assessees were denying out rightly that they have such undisclosed bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva were required to f ill up the consent waiver form. In response to the consent waiver form sent to the HSBC Bank, Geneva, the bank has sent them their bank account statements and CD. The assessees submitted these bank statements and CDs to the Department. This confirms that even in those cases where assessees were denying the ownershi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not apply to him and he does not have any such account, then burden to prove this claim is upon him, which he could not discharge. 8. Accordingly, he was asked in statement recorded under oath to establish his denial of possession of account. However, in reply he has denied ownership of the said account. Simply saying this does not discharge the onus since no facts or evidences were produced to prove his claim. Where all the details in the Base Note match wi th assessee's personal details, the denial of possession of the account has to be substantiated by the assessee. But he could not do so. 9. The only argument given by the assessee is that the information with the Department is not authentic. Repeating the same argument again and again does not discharge his onus. Since the information is already found to be true and correct (as discussed above) the responsibility to discharge onus in his especial case lies on him which he could not discharge. All these clearly establish the fact that the assessee has bank account with BUP_SIFIC_PER_ID 5090129582 linked with Code profile client 5091189255 in HSBC Bank, Geneva which is undisclosed to the Income Tax Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factors and the decision in the assessee s own case for the A.Y 2007-08, where the addition has been made by the A.O. and the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A), further the assessee has accepted the decision of the CIT(A) and has not preferred appeal. We find that the CIT(A) has passed the common order for A.Y 1997-98, 20006-07 2007-08 vide order dated 17.12.2021 and the CIT(A) has dealt on the grounds of appeal, submissions, findings of the AO and has dismissed the appeal for A.Y 2007-08 referred at page 37 of the order. We consider in appropriate to refer to the findings of the CIT(A) at page 47 Para 17 to 17.3 read as under: 17. Ground number 5 and 6of the appellant deal with the addition made of Rs. 27,90,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. While dealing with this issue, the AO vide para 7 of the assessment order has stated as under: Since, the assessee has not submitted the copy of said bank statement failed to discharge his onus and no evidence was produced to prove his claim, in view of the above the assessee was show caused during the assessment proceedings vide notice u/s 142[1] dated 09.02.2015 as to why an amount of US$ 1,00,000 should notbe treated as undisclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
