TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1080
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g an undisclosed bank a/c No.CD-1094 maintained with Central Bank of India, N.S.Road, Br., Kolkata since 13-09-2000 the AO had reason to believe that the transactions through the said bank a/c had not been reflected while filing the return of income for this A.Y.2006-07. Thus proceeding u/s 147 was initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued requiring the assessee to file his return of income. In compliance to the said notice the assessee filed the return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,01,263/- incorporating income under the head business & profession to the tune of Rs. 1,56,463. 3.1. The assessee was asked by the A.O. to give the details of his business income, its nature, constitution etc. with trade licence. In response A.R. of the assessee filed a written submission dated Nil on 07-09-09, stating that "the business income of Rs. 1,56,468/- declared in the return of income for A.Y.2006-07, in pursuance of notice u/s 148 refers to "Finance Commission" for accommodation entries provided to the parties. The said commission was received on average @ 0.25% towards to the transactions effected through account no.CD 1094 with Central Bank of India, N.S.Road Branch, Kolkata which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was Rs. 5,56,69,850/- (as per Annexure A) and total clearing credits was Rs. 74,19,563/- (as per Annexure B) was made during the F.Y. 2005-06. As the assessee was unable to explain and prove the sources of the above deposits the entire deposits of Rs. 6,30,89,413/- is hereby treated as his undisclosed cash credit from his undisclosed source and added to his total income for the F.Y.2005-06." 3.4. For the above conclusion the AO placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.Sundaram vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 287 ITR 145 (Mad) and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT 50 ITR 1. 4. Against the above order the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee made a plea that even if cash deposits are considered as belonging to the assessee entire amount cannot be taxed legally as there are regular deposits and withdrawals both by way of cheque and cash and no material has been found during the assessment proceedings that the withdrawal has been used by the assessee for any expense or for any investment. It means that the money withdrawn was regularly routed thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....111. v) ITO vs Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari vide ITA No.4294/Del/2010 order dated 10.06.2011. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the records. We find that in this case undisclosed bank account of the assessee was discovered. In the said account AO noted that there were deposits totaling to Rs. 6,30,89,413/-. Assessee initially submitted before the AO that the assessee was engaged in earning finance commission for providing accommodation entries to the parties. The said commission was received on an average of 0.25% towards the transactions. However, no evidence whatsoever to support the above contention was produced before AO. In these circumstances AO placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.Sundaram vs ACIT (supra). Now in assessee's appeal before the ld. CIT(A) it was contended that even if assessee's claim of earning finance commission is not accepted the assessee should be taxed on the basis of peak credit in the account. The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the above submissions of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has put the onus on the AO to prove that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y did not belong to him, the authorities were right in assessing it under section 69A." 7.2. In the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT reported in 50 ITR 1. The exposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under :- "It is well established that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt form taxation under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income. A.GOVINDARAJULU MUDALIAR V.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) In the original assessments for the assessment years 1045-46 and 1947-48 the assessee's accounts were not found complete and reliable and his income from his two businesses was computed by estimating his total sales and assessing the gross profits on the basis of certain percentages. Certain cash credits in the accounts of the assessee which had been overlooked in the original assessment were detected. In reassessment proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 192....