TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the present case is an individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 02.02.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2,00,940/-. As per the information received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee was a proprietor of two concerns namely M/s. Finwise Services and M/s. Vision Enterprises and the cash deposits of Rs. 2,33,970/- were made during the year under consideration in the Bank account maintained in the name of M/s. Finwise Services with ICICI Bank. Since the said Bank account was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed for the year under consideration, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer and the notice under section 148 was issued by him to the assessee on 29.03.2017. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not belong to the appellant. The appellant fully denied during the course of income tax assessment proceeding for the said A.Y. 2012-13 but AO did not consider and pay any heed to the contentions of Appellant. But in an assessment order passed subsequently on 12.12.2018 the successor AO fully agreed with the contention of the Appellant and accepted the plea of the Appellant as evident from the assessment order passed, enclosed herewith your kind perusal. The ICICI Bank of M/s. Finwise services does not belong to the appellant so there cannot be any addition if there is any deposit in this account because the deposit is not made by the appellant. Ground No. 2 relates to the error made by AO in not appreciating the fact. There was an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d FIR with the Police Department regarding forgery committed by unknown persons who had opened bank account by misusing his PAN card. This is indeed surprising as any normal person would have file FIR with the Police Department, if his PAN card has being fraudulently use for opening bank account. It appears that the explanation given by the appellant was just a cover up in order to avoid tax liability on his unaccounted transactions. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,33,970/- is confirmed. This ground of appeal fails and is therefore not allowed". Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material ....