TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court confirms cash deposits in Canara Bank as unexplained cash credit under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Late Sushil Modi Versus CIT., Central -II</h3> Late Sushil Modi Versus CIT., Central -II - TMI Issues:1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the treatment of cash deposits in Canara Bank as unexplained cash credit under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961Rs.2. Whether the Assessing Officer conducted the necessary investigation into the source of deposits in the bank accountRs.3. Whether the appellant adequately explained the source of the deposits during the assessment year 1987-88Rs.4. Whether the appellant's failure to produce evidence of the cash balance available to him affected the assessmentRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision upholding the treatment of cash deposits in Canara Bank as unexplained cash credit under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal justified this treatment based on the material found during the search and seizure, specifically the detection of Savings Bank Account No. 4790 and the deposits made therein. The appellant's defense was that the deposits were made from the cash balance available with him. However, the Tribunal found no attempt by the appellant to offer any explanation regarding the deposits, leading to the application of section 69.Issue 2:The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct the necessary investigation into the source of the deposits in the bank account. The appellant emphasized the importance of independent investigation by the Assessing Officer, citing the case of Malabar Industrial Corporation. The Tribunal, however, found that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the deposits as income from undisclosed sources due to the lack of proof regarding the availability of funds for the deposits.Issue 3:The appellant claimed that the deposits in Canara Bank were duly accounted for in the final accounts of the assessment year 1987-88. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not produce any evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal found discrepancies between the explanation offered during the assessment and the one presented before the court, leading to the conclusion that the deposits were indeed unexplained cash credits.Issue 4:The appellant's failure to produce evidence of the cash balance available to him during the assessment year 1987-88 raised doubts about the legitimacy of the deposits in Canara Bank. The court applied Clause (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which allows for an unfavorable presumption when evidence that could be produced is withheld. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the assessee and not solely on the Assessing Officer to find corroboration through independent inquiry.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's decision. The appellant's failure to provide evidence to support his claims regarding the source of the deposits led to the application of section 69 and the treatment of the deposits as income from undisclosed sources.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
