TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") dated 28.3.2013 was served upon the assessee on 29.3.2013. In response to the notice, no return was filed by the assessee, therefore notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) dated 2.7.2013 alongwith questionnaire, calling certain details, were issued by the AO to the assessee. Again on 2.12.2013, a show cause notice was issued which was also served personally on the assessee on 6.12.2013. The assessee has not responded to this show cause notice also. The AO also found that in two saving bank accounts in HDFC Bank, a sum of Rs.13,25,490/- was deposited and another amount of Rs.58,61,400/- was also deposited in the assessee accounts. As the assessee has not responded to various notices, and not even filed return of income pursuant to 148 notice, the AO added a sum of Rs.71,86,890/- on account of unexplained cash deposits and completed assessment by passing an ex parte assessment order. 3. Aggrieved against the ex parte assessment order, the assesee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The assessee has raised before the ld.CIT(A) that the reopening of the assessment is bad in law; that the AO erred in making ex parte assessment without due inquir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wife. The AO in remand report has observed that in the KYC form received from the bank photo was not visible hence AO issued summons to the branch manager HDFC Bank to submit KYC details in respect of two accounts which the appellant has denied and details of the account which was jointly held by appellant with his wife. In response to summons, bank manager furnished the visible photo of the account holder which was taken in Polaroid format which means the photo was instantly taken open the account which prime facie establish that the account holder was present at the time of opening bank account and it is crystal clear that appellant is the same person who is holding two bank account and account jointly held by him with wife. This contention and observations made by AO is not rebutted by appellant and same clearly establishes the fact that both the accounts actually belonged to appellant. v) It is also observed that appellant has not submitted any copy of FIR regarding alleged fraud as claimed by appellant nor submitted a copy of complaint filed before any authorities and same prove that the appellant has created afterthought story regarding disowning the two bank account....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ready held as account belonging to appellant by undersigned vide para 5 herein above. In the very same bank account, appellant has received cheques of Rs.71,00,000/- during period 18/08/2005 to 26/08/2005 and prime onus is on appellant to prove, genuineness of the transactions. Appellant has not submitted copy of return of income filed by depositors, his confirmation regarding advance given to appellant, reason of loan to appellant, source of such deposits as required as per provisions of section 68 of the Act and such fact clearly that appellant has failed to establish identity, creditworthiness of depositors and genuineness of transactions hence Rs.71,00,000/- through cheque and deposited in two bank accounts of appellant is required to be taxed as unexplained credit in the hands of appellant. Appellant has not provided the details of repayment of above amount till date hence such credits are required to be taxed as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Appellant has failed to provide details called by undersigned vide order sheet entry dated 161/12-2015 and primary onus as required u/s 68 is not discharged by appellant. In Order sheet entry dated 31/12/2015, it was stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... up for consideration. On the issue of 148-notice, the ld.AR claimed that 148-notice was not served to the assessee, whereas it has been received by his wife Veenaben S. Patel. She put her signature on the duplicate copy of the notice with address Chokcino Dhhar, Nr.Chabutaro, Unjha and also mentioned mobile no.99785 76767. The assessee claimed that address given in the notice is not correct address and notice served to his wife was not valid service of notice. In support of the same, the assessee filed before us account opening form, driving licence issued by RTO, gas connection certificate (which was in Gujarati), ration card copy, (which is also in Gujarati), and claimed that service of notice is bad in law. In this connection, the ld.AR relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court Chhattisgarh in the case of Arden Steel Ltd. Vs.ACIT, 405 ITR 422 (Chattisgarh) wherein the assessee was served with notice under section 148 through Chartered Accountant, and was never served to the assessee. Therefore, Hon'ble Court held that service was not proper and quashed the entire assessment order. The ld.AR also submits that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessment is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on page no.__. This shows my mobile number on receipted copy. Therefore, assessee has reasons to believe that the inquiry of A.O. was without jurisdiction. Thereafter, assessee received the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) from the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Patan who assessed his income at Rs.71,86,890/- by adding same amount as unaccounted income being cash deposited .in two Bank A/c's. with HDFC Bank, Unjha Station Road Branch." 11. From the reading of the above written submissions, it is clear that with mala fide intention the assessee has neither filed return of income nor filed any details before AO which forced the ld.AO to pass an ex parte assessment against the assessee. Regarding reasons recorded, the AO has observed that the assessee has not filed return of income for the Asst.Year 2006-07, and the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.13,25,490/-in saving bank account, thus, the assessee is having a taxable income, but not filed return of income, therefore, he has reason to believe that to the extent of transaction of Rs.13,25,490/- income of the assessee has escaped assessment in terms of section 148 of the Act, and therefore the issuance of n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signs P.Ltd. Vs. ITO, in ITA No.1617/Del/2010 wherein the AO made addition of Rs.2.63 crores under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained amount deposited in the bank account maintained with Standard Chartered Bank, which was not belonged to assessee-company. 15. Per contra, the ld.DR appearing for the Revenue brought to our attention remand report dated 26.10.2015 and 18.11.2015 by the AO. However, the contention of the assessee that two saving bank accounts in HDFC bank did not belong to the assessee is not acceptable. Two accounts found to be jointly held by the assessee and his wife. In response to the summons, the Bank Manager furnished visible photo of the account holder, which prima facie establish that account holder was present at the time of opening of the bank account, and it is crystal clear that the assessee is the same person, who is holding two bank accounts jointly with his wife. Furthermore, even assuming for a moment that SB account does not belong to the assessee, the assessee has not filed any FIR against the so-called forged bank account. Further, in the order-sheet dated 16.12.2015, the assessee's representative has accepted that the bank accounts ....