TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and not permissible either in law or on facts. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 22,21,1007- as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Rs. 6,66,330/- 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that alternatively, addition would be made u/s. 56 of the Act as Income from Other Sources without specific notice to the effect which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in enlarging the scope of the assessment by alternatively making the addition u/s. 56 of the Act when the AO had made no such addition. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the AO of making an addition of interest income of Rs. 2,052/-. Rs. 616/- 7. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000 23/12/2009 Deposit 100 -1501100 23/12/2009 Withdrawn 300000 -1201100 23/12/2009 Deposit 300000 -1501100 10/02/2010 Deposit 720000 -2221100 In view of this fact, the peak amount comes to Rs. 22,21,000/-. The amount of Rs. 22,21,100/- is not explained, therefore, the same is added to the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Since the assessee has concealed the income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for concealing the income. [Addition of Rs. 22,21,100/-]" 3.1 In addition, the Ld. Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs. 2,052/- on account of unexplained interest income. 4. Before, the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the deposits represent gifts received from relatives in order to effectuate higher studies by the assessee. The assessee at the relevant time was a student of 19 years of age and in order to pursue higher education abroad, he has to show that he was having sufficient liquidity in his bank account. It is for this limited purpose that gift was given by the relatives of the assessee. The assessee also filed copies of confirmation of various lenders, being relati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rader i.e. Shri Guru Jyot Traders of Visnagar and the bills did not bear the printed serial number and also the verifiable signature on such bills. If the appellant or these relatives had the copies of sale bills at the time of recording their statements on oath by the A.O., the same could have been produced before the A.O. for his verification. However, the appellant and their relatives failed to discharge their onus to prove that there was a genuine sale of agricultural produces. Suppose the sales as per the copies of sale bills are to be treated as genuine for the time being, the relatives of the appellant could not give the gift out of the entire sale proceeds as mentioned in the table above as the agricultural operations have to be carried out which involves incurring of the expenses at least 30% of the sale proceeds in the form of purchase of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, running of borewell through electricity, labourers engaged for agricultural activities, storage of crops etc. and also for the milk business, maintaining of the pet animals, feeding them on regular basis, providing proper shelter etc. If these factors are considered, there would not be sufficie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that re-opening of assessment is bad in law since assessee's case has been reopened solely on the basis of deposit of certain cash in the books of account, which cannot lead to the inference that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He relied on several judicial precedents in support of his contention. He then drew our attention to page 9, para 5 of Ld. CIT(Appeals) order wherein it is evident that the assessee has submitted detailed documentary evidence to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of lenders. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that details of documentary evidences in respect of parties from whom gift were received were duly produced and hence the burden cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of lenders has been discharged by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is an established law that the assessee is not required to prove 'source of source' of deposits, es....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tified. Again in the case of Smt. Uma Mandal v ITO [2021] 128 taxmann.com 369 (Jaipur - Trib.), ITAT held that where Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice against assessee on ground that an information was received that assessee had deposited certain amount in cash in her bank account but did not file return of income, since Assessing Officer reopened assessment after recording due reasons and after following due process and such information available before Assessing Officer was relevant and afforded a nexus to formation of prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in hands of assessee, impugned reopening notice was justified. Therefore, in our considered view, looking into the totality of facts in the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer is justified in re-opening the assessment in the instant set of facts. The process of re-opening was initiated after affording due opportunity to the assessee to give explanation regarding source of deposit. It is only when the assessee failed to comply / co-operate that case was re-opened u/s 148 of the Act, after following due process of law. 8. Ground 2 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed for reason's cited ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e advanced by them. In the case of Kuldeep Singh v. ITO [2020] 113 taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh - Trib.)where assessee explained that amount deposited in bank account was received as gift from his father who had sold agricultural land, since revenue authorities had not doubted veracity of sale deed brought on record by assessee's father, source of cash deposited in bank was duly explained and, thus, impugned addition made under section 68 was to be deleted. In our considered view, the assessee has been able to establish the source of cash deposit. The Revenue has not brought anything on record that the lenders were not in existence (the Aadhar cards of lenders have been placed on record) or that they did not have agricultural land capable of earning agricultural income and neither the confirmations filed by lenders were challenged as being fallacious. The assessee has thus discharged the initial burden cast upon him u/s 68 of the Act. It is a well settled that under the law the assessee can be asked to prove source of credit but not the source of the source as held by various Courts including the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj).In view ....