TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 707
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....76,000/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,44,000/- after making addition of Rs. 10,32,000/- being unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The assessment was however set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 10th September, 2015 and matter was restored to the file of A.O. to pass assessment order afresh, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2.1. The assessee explained before A.O. that actual cash deposits in the bank account was of Rs. 7,32,000/- and not Rs. 10,32,000/-. It was submitted that the Bank A/c. No.xxx 35051 maintained with Axis Bank Ltd., Krishna Nagar, belongs to Shri Mahesh Sharma and not to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be taxed against the assessee. The A.O. summoned the assessee as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to state that Sh. Mahesh Sharma will pool his money in the account which the assessee was authorized to operate. 6. Once the assessee was holding a joint account with someone else and he alleges that the money was not deposited-iv the bank by him, then the onus is on him to produce the other person and to prove that the money was deposited by the other person. The circumstances in the present case show that since Sh. Mahesh Sharma was carrying out investments and various financial compliances on behalf of the assessee. The assessee was depositing the money in the bank account to facilitate his Authorised Representative to withdraw the money for various necessities like investments, payment of taxes, etc. without bothering the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where the joint holders are close relatives, it is normal that the dominant relative or the senior relative, is presumed to have made the deposits but where the joint accounts have been opened between unrelated persons, the onus is on each co-owner to adduce evidence that the deposits have not been made by him but by the other co-owner. The assessee has not been able to discharge his onus that the deposits were not made by him. The assessing officer was, therefore, correct to retain the addition of Rs. 7,32,000/-in the case of the assessee. 9. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed." 3. After considering the rival submissions, I do not find any merit in the appeal of assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee merely cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....half of the assessee. Since, Shri Mahesh Sharma was acting as Accountant on behalf of the assessee and was providing professional advice to the assessee and filing return by the assessee, therefore, there is no reason to believe that Shri Mahesh Sharma would open a joint bank account with the assessee for his personal affairs. It is probable that assessee would have opened this bank account with the professional for conducting unaccounted transactions on his behalf. The onus is upon the assessee to explain the circumstances under which this bank account was opened with his Accountant. However, no explanation have been filed in this behalf. The Ld. CIT(A) rightly noted that normally joint bank account are opened between the relatives or clos....