TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch 2014 was dismissed. 2. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The action of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the addition levied by A.O of Rs. 57,00,240/- u/s 68 is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and the disallowance may kindly be quashed. 2. That the action of the CIT(A) in giving a finding that the assessee has failed to discharge is onus with regard to cash credit and thus upholding the addition of Rs. 57,00,420/- is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and deserves to be deleted. 3. That his action in not considering submissions of the assessee that section 68 is not applicable to him at all and upholding the addition is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and deserves to be dele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 305204363338), ICICI bank (account number 002901526244) and HDFC bank account number (13921930002539). However according to the AIR information assessee was also having an ICICI bank having account number 033101507741 which has not been declared by the assessee wherein the assessee has deposited cash of ? 4,605,380/-. The information was not forthcoming from the assessee except the request of adjournment or non-compliance. The learned assessing officer sought information from the bank with respect to the cash deposited u/s 133 (6) of the Act. The HDFC bank with respect to one account stated that assessee has deposited cash of ? 390,000/- and with respect to the two different bank accounts with ICICI bank it was found that assessee has d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as between the customers and suppliers through the bank account of the assessee. It was further stated that assessee was earning a small sum of 0.5% in most cases to facilitate this deal. He further challenge that as the cash did not belong to the assessee but was withdrawn and paid back to the principal same cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. Assessee further stated that as assessee was not required to maintain any books of accounts, so addition u/s 68 of the income tax act cannot be made. The learned CIT - A found that the assessee has not furnished single piece of evidence to substantiate the above claim and to that extent the appellant has failed to discharge his onus. He further noted that assessee has claimed that he doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question has been an agent servicing these various clients all over the country including Chennai. It was also stated that assessee has withdrawn all his cash received from his principals from time to time for various expenses he had to incur. These expenses have being incurred by the assessee in pursuit of his business and profession for which he was entitled to various rates of commission starting from 0.5% to 2.5%. Therefore, the learned authorised representative submitted that assessee has deposited cash on behalf of his principals or them, withdrawn this cash for the purpose for which the customers have deposited cash in his bank account and has merely earned small commission. He further submitted that provisions of Section 68 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt along with the tax audit report and therefore the claim of the assessee that amount deposited in the bank account cannot lead to an addition u/s 68 of the income tax act. He submitted that assessee is maintaining the books of accounts which is evident from the balance sheet and the profit and loss account submitted. He therefore submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In the present case assessee is a salaried employee. He has deposited huge cash in his three different bank accounts; one of the bank account was detected by the assessing officer through AIR information. The assessee has no explanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or he is not disclosing, it clearly shows that addition is required to be made in the hands of the assessee as there is no explanation about the source and nature of credits. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in confirming an addition of ? 5,700,240/- on account of unexplained cash credit being cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. 8. With respect to the claim of the assessee to grant the benefit of peak credit we do not find any substantial the argument in view of the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus DK Garg (404 ITR 757) it is held that that where an assessee was unable to explain the sources of deposits and the corresponding payments , he w....