TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". Case called twice. None appears at assessee's behest. The Registry has already issued RPAD notice dated 10.04.2017. The same has been received back unserved. We thus proceed ex parte against the assessee. Her main appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee's sole substantive ground challenges unexplained cash deposits addition of Rs. 17.77lacs as made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed in lower appellate proceedings on account of her failure in both proving source as well as substantive evidence of rotation of the same money in support of her latter plea seeking addition of only peak amount. We notice that the CIT(A) has dealt with the issue as under: "6.1. I h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.1.1 It is an obligatory duty cast upon a person filing the return of income to disclose all his income derived from any source under various heads and indicate the income under each head, which is chargeable to income-tax, after making the permissible deductions. Disclosure of income would be disclosure of particulars of income, which a person is duty bound to disclose in fulfillment of his statutory obligations to pay tax on the income chargeable to tax. After the return is filed under section 139(1), the assessment of tax is to be made and for the purpose of making an assessment under the Act, the ITO makes an enquiry contemplated by section 142, under which notice is issued on the person who has made the return to produce accounts,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all material facts necessary for his assessment, reassessment proceeding can be initiated as provided under section 147. This again shows that full and true disclosure of income is a primary obligation of the assessee. 6.1.2 The appellant has also contended that the total cash deposited has been erroneously added and only addition of the peak credit could have been taken even if addition is to be made. But the appellant has not provided any supporting document to demonstrate the claim of peak credit except for a print out of cash book and bank book. Mere filing of cash book and bank book does not discharge the burden of proof vis-a-vis peak credit. The appellant's claim of applying peak credit is without any material or basis. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the-peak of the amounts deposited can be worked out. But if the records are incomplete or if the records available only show total amount received on a particular date, a peak credit statement cannot be prepared. In the instant case, the appellant does not maintain any books of accounts -regular or rough on the basis of which the peak credit can be worked out. Hence this contention of the appellant falls flat on merits and facts as he is unable to demonstrate the source and utilization of the cash deposits and withdrawals in the Bank accounts as discussed above. 6.1.5. The complete contention of appellant has been examined. It is a matter of fact that this secret Bank A/c would not have come to the knowledge of the tax department s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound in his possession. Similarly, in all cases where a particular receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the initial onus is on the Assessing Officer to prove that it is taxable. Where, however, the assessee claims exemption, the burden is on the assessee to prove it to be exempt. Same is the position in case of allowances,-deductions, or claims of loss, etc. Similarly, where there is a statutory rebuttable presumption against the assessee, as in case of cash credits etc., u/s 68 or unexplained investment u/s 69, the initial burden of proof is on the assessee to show that the cash credit is genuine or the investment is not unexplained. The AO should, therefore, always examine as to who has to discharge the burden of proof. It may also be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red as real. As laid down by Apex Court in the case CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540, apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon Supreme Court held that "It is true that an apparent must be considered, real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make selfserving statements in documents either ex....