TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amily:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The above titled appeals have been preferred by though different but associated assessees. Since the facts as well as the issue involved are identical in nature, hence, both the appeals are taken together for disposal by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from ITSS No.30/M/2011. ITSS No. 30/M/2011 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessee provided confirmation from a number of persons who were supposedly running the above concerns. Enquiry letters were sent to the addresses provided by the assessee. Most of the letters were returned unserved. The assessee was asked to produce the persons. Only 9 persons were produced who were stated to be running multiple concerns whose bank accounts were found in the assessee's premises. The persons could not produce books of accounts. None except one had filed the income tax return. No proof of business carried on by the persons could be filed. The persons also could not explain the sources of the deposits in the bank accounts of the concerns. Shri Atul Sanghvi and Shri Dilip Shah who were partners of the business also mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these credits. The AO then Proceeded to tax only the commission income earned by the assessee on substantive basis, to the extent of his share in the business. 4. The Ld. CIT thereafter called upon and examined the records of the assessee and Shri Dilip Shah and found that the assessee and Shri Dilip Shah were associates in the business of issuing accommodation bills through various bogus concerns to a number of parties. He noted that the Assessing Officer while assessing the aggregate amount of bank deposits of Rs. 1388.09 crores spread over various assessment years comprised in the block period, protectively, in the hands of the assessee and his business associate, in equal share (50%), had not given a finding with regard to the specific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on him of explaining the source of the deposits, proving the identity of the persons to whom the bank accounts belonged if the accounts did not belong to the assessee, prove the credit worthiness of the persons etc. In the absence of such explanation and proof and in view of the evidence found in the assessee's premises, the deposits of in the bank accounts would be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The amount of Rs. 1388.09 crores therefore should have been assessed in the hands of the assessee to the extent of his share in the business, on substantive basis and not on protective basis. A protective assessment only lies if the assessee could prove that the amount belonged to other persons in whose hands it should be assessed li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out and that the transaction is genuinely carried out by such other person. In a case where such proof is submitted, the amount or amounts would be reduced from the aggregate amount of unexplained bank deposits and taxed only on protective basis in the respective year or years . The remaining amount, .which remains unexplained, would be taxed in the respective years in the hands of the assessee proportionately, on substantive basis, as stated in the foregoing para." 6. The assessee has thus come in appeal before us agitating the revision of the assessment order by the Ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. The Ld. A.R. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,533/- had been treated as bogus sales for which sales bills were found and were duly impounded. However, the remaining sum of Rs. 1388,09,01,411/- had remained unexplained in spite of various opportunities given to the assessee. The AO had treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee and decided to bring it into tax in various assessment years. He also worked out the additions for different assessment years. However, he made the said additions on protective basis observing that the assessee had not been able to establish the source of these credits. He, however, made the addition of 5% of the said amount as commission income of the assessee on substantive basis. A perusal of the above findings itself reveals that the order of th....