Court upholds Income Tax Act order, dismisses writ petition challenging substantial deposits in Axis Bank account.

The Court upheld the order under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding the reasons provided by the first respondent to be justifiable. The petitioner's failure to explain the substantial deposits in the Axis Bank account and the absence of an income return led to the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court concluded that there was no merit in challenging the impugned order, resulting in the closure of the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on lack of awareness of bank account, failure to disclose account details, and absence of explanation for credited amount.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 19.04.2022 under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing lack of awareness of an Axis Bank branch in Nambiyur Town during the relevant period. The petitioner denied knowledge of a bank account opened in his name at Axis Bank, Nambiyur Town, with a credit of Rs.1,09,25,580. Despite requesting account details from the respondents and explaining that the account was opened at the request of a friend but remained inactive, the petitioner faced allegations of non-cooperation.

The first respondent, in the impugned order, highlighted that the petitioner's account at Axis Bank had substantial deposits without any complaint or F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner regarding the discrepancy. The onus was placed on the petitioner to prove the legitimacy of the transactions. The petitioner was provided with details of the bank account and credits but failed to explain the source of the deposits, leading to suspicions of an assessment evasion due to the absence of an income return for the relevant year.

Upon hearing both parties, the Court found the reasons provided by the first respondent in the impugned order to be justifiable and sound. As the petitioner failed to adequately address the concerns raised regarding the credited amount and the lack of income return for the assessment year, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in challenging the impugned order. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.

---