9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act in relation to the inquiry of suspicious transactions carried out against Late Shri Chhotalal V. Doshi (Prop. of Abhi Enterprise) and it was found that he used to lend his bank account to other persons for commission of Rs. 300/- per Lakh. Further that only current accounts and personal accounts were used to receive unaccounted cash deposits of other parties from all over India through cash withdrawals/cheques clearance, the said cash was handed over to the concerned persons involved in under invoicing and out of the books sales. Five diaries were also impounded wherein unaccounted credits of Rs. 34,15,391/- were written /mentioned against name of the assessee before us during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2010-11. The said unaccounted credits were, according to the Revenue, was unexplained and required to be verified. The Revenue was of the belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the matter was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. It is also a fact that the said information provided by the ADIT was completely relied upon by the Ld. AO and made addition of Rs.34,15,391/-, which was, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said Dharmendra Doshi had made entries in the diary based on the directions of his late father and the said Dharmendra Doshi had admitted during the cross examination that he did not know the appellant. It is also claimed by the appellant that the said Dharmendra Doshi has not produced any evidence of persons depositing the cash in their accounts. It is claimed by the appellant the said Dharrnendra Doshi had entered the names of various persons only to avoid payments of tax on his own transactions. It is claimed that no liability should be fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj) (h) PCIT Vs. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79 taxmann.com 257 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has no evidence to prove that the assessee has engaged in the financial transactions on the basis of which the additions have been made by the AO. Further, Shri Dharmendra Doshi was unable to submit names of parties who have deposited cash and bank account of late Shri Chhota Lal Doshi (proprietor of Abhi Enterprises). In this regard, counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 69 of the paper book, wherein Shri Dharmendra Doshi has stated "as have already stated that the amount deposited in said bank account was sales consideration of all businessmen of Jamnagar. I was just providing service to them on commission basis. I don't know about parties who have deposited the amount. Since the said amount represents out of books sales/sale consideration of businessmen of Jamnagar, hence liable to pay taxes on them". The counsel for the assessee relied upon the case of ACIT v. Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696, wherein it was held that entries made in the accounts of third-party regarding payment to the assessee is not sufficient as there is no guarantee that the entries were genuine in absence of any corroborative evidence. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... society. The Assessing Officer noted that diary contained entries of deposits received from various persons. He thus recorded statement of said AGM, who admitted that said deposits were undisclosed money of depositors and assessee was one of them. On basis of said statement, Assessing Officer made addition of unexplained money to assessee's income. It was noted that said AGM could not even identify persons who brought money to him or denominations in which money was brought. Moreover, survey operations did not bring on record any acknowledgment/receipt in respect of money received from assessee. Further, said AGM could not substantiate his statements by bringing any other credible or corroborative evidence on record. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that in aforesaid circumstances, impugned addition made in hands of assessee deserved to be set aside. 6.2 In the case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. TRO [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.), during search proceedings in case of 'D Group', some loose papers were seized wherein certain amounts were written against name of assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of said amount as undisclosed income in name of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
