TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antiated when the assessee was never required to further do so. 3. That by any reckoning, the orders of the authorities below, are not sustainable being contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. P K Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). 4. That the order under appeal is against law and facts of the case." 3. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 12.07.2011, declaring an income of Rs. 1,59,500/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the reason on the basis of which the case of the assessee was selected, i.e., AIR information, revealed, that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 45.50 lacs in his Saving Bank Account No.55098535343 with State Bank of Patiala, Branch: Kanak Mandi, Hoshiarpur. On being queried as regards the source of aforesaid cash deposits the assessee distanced himself from the same and submitted that he had in order to facilitate his gettin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r deposited the funds in question and also made the withdrawals from the said account. It was also the claim of the assessee that a withdrawal of Rs. 8.58 lac on 29.03.2010 was made by Shri Jatinder Kumar (supra) coupled with withdrawals of substantial amounts by the latters accomplices, viz. S/shri Harvinder Singh, Surjit Singh etc., which therein clearly established that the entire bank account was during the relevant assessment year managed and operated by Shri. Jatinder Kumar(supra). In order to buttress the genuineness and veracity of his aforesaid claim the assessee had filed an "affidavit" with the CIT(A). However, CIT(A) did not find favour with the aforesaid claim that was so raised by the assessee before her. Insofar the "affidavit" filed by the assessee was concerned, the CIT(A) dubbed the same as a self serving document and rejected it, for the reason, that the same was not substantiated by the assessee on the basis of any corroborative material. As regards the claim of the assessee that the bank account during the year under consideration was managed and operated by Shri Jatinder Kumar (supra), the same too was rejected by the CIT(A), for the reason, that in support of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the department. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that considering the peculiarity of the facts involved in the case the CIT(A) in all fairness ought to have called for a 'remand report' from the A.O and should have verified the factual position as was claimed by the assessee before him. Ld. AR in order to drive home his claim that the Assessing Officer as per the mandate of law remained vested with a discretion as to whether or not an addition in the hands of an assessee is to be made by taking recourse to Section 69 of the Act, therein, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC). 7. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') relied upon the orders of the authorities below. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee had failed to discharge the 'onus' that was cast upon him as regards explaining the 'nature' and 'source' of the cash deposits in his bank account, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the said amount as an unexplained investment within the meaning of Section 69 of the Act. Adverting to the claim of the assessee that the amount deposited in the bank accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate transport department. Although, it was for the assessee to have come forth with a plausible explanation about the 'nature' and 'source' of the investments made by him, but then, even de hors a plausible explanation by the assessee, the facts involved in the case should have been considered in totality by the Assessing Officer before arriving at any conclusion. Now, in the case before us, we wonder that as to how the assessee would have substantiated his claim that the amount in question belonged to Shri Jatinder Kumar (supra), a travel agent, because in all probabilities the said person would not have come to the rescue of the assessee by acknowledging the ownership of the funds in question. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that there would be no gainsaying that the "affidavit" filed by the assessee was required to be given due weightage and ought to have been considered by the CIT(A) in the backdrop of the other circumstantial evidences which she could have gathered by calling for a 'remand report' from the Assessing Officer, with a specific direction to him to make necessary verifications from the aforementioned person, viz., Shri Jatinder Kumar (supra....