Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (4) TMI 1382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 05.09.2016 restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication of the issue by observing as under:- "5. We have heard the Ld. A.R. of the assessee and perused the records. In the interest of justice and the contention raised by the Assessee's counsel that additional evidence filed by the Assessee by way of Paper Book No. 2 from pages no. 80 to 158 i.e. Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. Provided by it of Suren Electronic & Electrical (P) Ltd. Etc....; Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. provided by it of Suren Electronic & Electrical (P) Ltd. Etc.... Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. Provided by it of Amardeep Const. (P) Ltd. Etc..... Balance sheet from seller of shares provided by Yansan Plastic (P) Ltd. Etc.; Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. provided by it of Sunstar Securities (P) Ltd. Etc. and Confirmation and Acknowledgement from seller of shares with their ITR etc. provided by it of Metro Fincap (P) Ltd., Kaziranga Garments, Ardent Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd........ are very essential and goes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the end of the year. Hence, when the WIP squared up position are there no need to reflect. In the light of the above facts it is respectfully submitted that the above details and explanations may kindly be taken on record and for remaining explanation the proceedings may kindly shortly be adjourned for 08.12.2017, since the matter is time barred, in the interest of justice." 4. However, the AO was not fully satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. While he accepted the cheque deposits, however, he did not accept the cash deposit made by the assessee in the bank account. He noted that it is not the case where money is first withdrawn and then deposited. It is unique case where the assessee goes on depositing the money in his undisclosed bank account throughout the year. He further noted that the bank account maintained with Indusind Bank was closed on 01.04.2006 which shows that the assessee tried to erase the trace of his account with Induind Bank. According to him, the said bank account maintained with Indusind Bank was never disclosed to the Income Tax Department which itself shows a dishonest intention on the part of the assessee. Finally, the AO held that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....received have also been field by the assessee company during the course of assessment proceedings despite adequate opportunities provided it for the purpose." 5. The AO accordingly accepted the cheque deposit of Rs. 44,78,400/- and made addition of Rs. 1,84,45,000/- being cash deposit in the bank account by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained addition of Rs. 2,29,23,400/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under:- "3.3. The short issue to be decided in the present case is whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO was justified in treating Rs. 2,29,23,400/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 in the hands of the appellant. 3.4. The AO has added the entire amount of cash as well as cheque u/s 68 of the Act. As per the appellant's own admission that it has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,45,000/- in bank account. The appellant claims the deposit out of sale proceeds of the shares. But the details of the sale of the shares were never disclosed. The appellant could not submit the evidence of the purchase of shares and source of money for purchase of those shares. No share certificate number....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides that the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The aforesaid provisions are nothing but recognition of broad principles of common law governing the issue under consideration. 3.8. In the case of Gordhandas Hargovandas & Another Vs. CIT (126 ITR 560) (Bom.) the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:- "Though in isolation each piece of evidence may appear to be of little weight, on an overall appreciation it would be permissible to consider their cumulative effect and decide one way or the other." 3.9. Genuineness of transaction has to be gathered on the parameters spelt out in S.3 of the Evidence Act, which provides as to when a fact should be treated as proved. The observations of Hon'bie Supreme C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e onus shifts on the Department. In the instant case not even the identity could be established, neither the creditworthiness nor the genuineness of the transaction could be established beyond any iota of doubt. This view was taken in the case of Shanker Industries Vs CIT (1978) 114 ITR 678 (Cat). The onus is stated to be shifted only when there is evidence to sufficiently establish a prima facie case in favour of the party on whom onus lies. 3.14. In the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to explain the reasons for concealing the bank account maintained with Indusind Bank from the Department. The appellant has also failed to explain the source of deposit in the above bank account. The story of deposit out of sale proceeds of shares is only a tell tale story and after thought as the appellant could not produce any convincing evidence in respect of purchase and sale of shares. Even primary information like name of the companies, share certificate nos., distinctive number of shares, details of D-Mat account, name and addresses of brokers were not submitted. The appellant is dealing in the business of trading of cloth. Tota....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d bank account of the appellant with the Indusind Bank as under:-   3.17. It is seen that the above bank account with the Indusind Bank was closed on 01.04.2006. This shows that the appellant tried to erase the trace of his account with Indusind Bank, it needs to be again mentioned that the above bank account with the Indusind Bank was nEUR?ver disclosed to the Income Tax Department. This itself shows a dishonest intention on the part of the appellant. 3.18. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. (228 Taxman 88) while examining the provisions of section 68 has ruled that where the assessee failed to offer a reasonable and acceptable explanation regarding the source and nature of credit, the AO is entitled to draw inference that the receipt are that of an assessable nature. The High Court observed as under: "9. A bare reading of Section 68 of the Act suggests that there has to be credit of amounts in the books maintained by an assessee; such credit has to be a sum during the previous year and if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credit or the explanation offered is not satisfactory, then the sums so credited c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... monies, dividends, warrants etc. have to be sent and the relationship is/was a continuing one. In such cases, therefore, the assessee cannot simply furnish details and remain quiet even when summons issued to shareholders under Section 131 return unserved and uncomplied. This approach would be unreasonable as a general proposition as the assessee cannot plead that they had received money, but could do nothing more and it was for the assessing officer to enforce share holders attendance. Some cases might require or justify visit by the Inspector to ascertain whether the shareholders/subscribers were functioning or available at the addresses, but it would be incorrect to state that the assessing officer should get the addresses from Registrar of Companies' website or search for the addresses of shareholders and communicate with them. Similarly, creditworthiness was not proved by mere issue of a cheque or by furnishing a copy of statement of bank account. Circumstances might require that there should be some evidence of positive nature to show that the said subscribers had made a genuine investment, acted as angel investors, after due diligence or for personal reasons. Thus, find....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In Yadu Hari Dalmia vs. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 48, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has observed'- "It is well known that the whole catena of sections starting from s. 68 have been introduced into the taxing enactments step by step in order to plug loopholes and in order to place certain situations beyond doubt even though there were judicial decisions covering some of the aspects. For example, even long prior to the introduction of s. 68 in the statute book, courts had held that where any amounts were found credited in the books of the assessee in the previous year and the assessee offered no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered was, in the opinion of the ITO, not satisfactory, the sums so credited could be charged to income-tax as income of the assessee of a relevant previous year. Section 68 was inserted in the I.T. Act, 1961, only to provide statutory recognition to a principle which had been clearly adumbrated in judicial decisions." 3.21. Adverting to the facts in the appellant's case, it is obvious that half baked documentary evidence are filed to explain the source of the impugned credit. Despite, repeated opportunities, during ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which are totally contrary to law and a such the order suffers from patient illegality. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by passing the order in mechanical manner just by deciding one ground instead as per GOA as per Memo of Appeal." 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in treating Rs. 2,29,23,400/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the AO in the original assessment order had made addition of Rs. 2,29,23,400/- being cash deposit of Rs. 1,84,45,000/- and cheque deposit of Rs. 44,78,400/-. After the matter was remanded back by the Tribunal to the file of the AO, the AO accepted the cheque deposit of Rs. 44,78,400/- but retained the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 1,84,45,000/- as unexplained. He submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without considering the facts properly has merely repeated the earlier order passed by his predecessor, which was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the AO. Accordingly, the AO had deleted the addition of Rs. 44,48,400/-. The ld. CIT(A) without issuing any enhancement notice travelled beyond the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were transferred and the consideration has been received in cash which were duly accepted by the parties concerned. Therefore, no addition is called for. In his alternate contention, he submitted that only some profit on estimate basis can be added treating the assessee as a broker/mediator and the entire cash deposit cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act. 10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the AO and the ld. CIT(A). 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the original assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2008 determining the total income at Rs. 2,29,25,630/- wherein, an addition of Rs. 2,29,23,400/- was made being cash deposit of Rs. 1,84,45,000/- and ca cheque deposit of Rs. 44,78,400/-. We find the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action vide order dated 31.03.2010 and in further appeal the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO with certain directions, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent Commission abates under section 245HA, he may, after taking into consideration all the material and other information produced by the assessee before, or the results of the inquiry held or evidence recorded by, the Settlement Commission, in the course of the proceeding before it and such other material as may be brought on his record, confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; (b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty; (c) in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. (2) The Commissioner (Appeals) shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Explanation.-In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) may consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant." 13.1. A perusal of the above shows that the ld. CIT(A) shall not enhanc....