2021 (7) TMI 617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facilitate cash deposit of Rs. 55 lakhs in to his account and further to take a DD in favour of 1. S. Sridharan, 2. T. Sethna, 3. S. Sundaramoorthy, 4. P.L. Manjunath. Based on his request, Mr. P. Gopivaradhan had approached him to favour Mr. S. Prasanth to deposit in one of his bank account bearing A/c. No. 159444444096 with Induslnd Bank, Mogappair Branch. The said cash deposit of Rs. 55 lakhs in his bank account does not belong to him and it belongs to Mr. S. Prasanth. The A O recorded a sworn statement from Mr. Prasanth and based on that statement issued summons to four persons from whom Shri. Prasanth sworned to have taken the impugned cash and also required the assessee and Shri. Prasanth to coordinate with each other and produce all the four persons before him. Since, these four persons were not produced before him and the assessee has failed to establish that the impugned cash deposits are not his cash, the Assessing Officer added such cash deposits as an unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 and submitted that the A O of Shri S. Prasanth has held in that order that the sources of the cash deposits of Rs. 55 lakhs made in the bank account of Shri. S. Prakash Kumar has been explained and completed his assessment by accepting the income returned by him (Shri. S. Prakash). Since, the sources of cash are explained by Shri. S. Prakash which is accepted by the department, the addition made in the hands of Shri. Sadasivam Prakash Kumar, the assessee, is not sustainable as he has complied within the scope of section 68 of the Act and sustaining any addition would amount to double addition and hence pleaded that the assessee's appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, the ld. DR invited our attention to the following portion of the order of the ld. CIT (A) "................ And recorded a statement Mr. Prasanth was also summoned and a statement recorded from him also extract of the relevant portion of Mr. Prasanth's statement is reproduced for ready reference below Q. No. 1 I am showing one Affidavit filed by Mr. Sadasivam Prakash Kumar dated 03.11.2018 to the effect that during the FY 2015-16, you have instructed your friend Mr. P. Gopivaradhan t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame is below (1) S. Sridharan, (2) T. Sethna, (3) S. Sundaramoorthy, (4) P.L. Manjunath As per the Ld. Authorized Representative, appellant has discharged his primary onus of proving that the said cash of Rs. 55 lakhs belongs to him. After carefully considering the submission made and the AO's order the following conclusion is arrived at: 1. The appellant has not explained why his bank account was used as a conduct for accommodation entry of the impugned amount 2. Appellant has not explained why the need arose for depositing cash into his bank account, which apparently was used to make payment to four unknown persons. 3. If money belonged to Mr. Prasanth why was his bank account not used for the cash deposit? 4. Which prudent businessman will risk the use of is bank account to park other people's money? 5. Simply filing self-serving affidavits does not absolve the appellant from explaining the real source of cash 6. There is no corroborative evidence to explain the trail of cash in this assessee. The four persons who received the payments in DD are real persons or dummy person....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar from the bank statement that Shri Prasanth Kumar Samuthravadivel was also holding account with IndusInd Bank and it is clear from his statement that he did not have such huge cash balance on 21.4.2015 and further his statement has reveals huge cash deposits were made in July and September 2015 also. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that when Shri Prasanth Kumar Samuthravadivel himself is having bank account with the same bank, what was the need to receive and hold such huge amount in the cash form with him and why it has to be deposited in the assessee's bank account instead of in his own account etc has not been explained/examined and so also the sources of other deposits. Therefore, the Ld. DR submitted that the impugned cash trail is not explained/examined Shri. Prasanth has taken many versions. It is also clear that the assessee has neither established that the impugned cash deposited in his bank account is not his cash nor Shri. Prasanth proved the position he has taken in the sworn statement recorded by the A O by producing 1. S. Sridharan, 2. T. Sethna, 3. S. Sundaramoorthy, 4. P.L. Manjunath before the A O. Therefore, the Ld. DR supported reasoning and the order of th....