TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of clarity, we take the facts for Assessment Year 2009-10 first. The fact shows that assessee is an individual showing income from business and income from other sources. He filed return of income on 31st July, 2009 at Rs. 1,41,030/-. 4. Case of assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 31st March, 2016. Reasons recorded shows that:- i. information is received from Deputy Director of income-tax (Investigation), Unit-8 vide letter dated 28th March, 2016, stated that in bank account of assessee with Union Bank of India in the name of M/s. PK Trading Company, Gowalia Tank Branch, where in credit transaction of Rs. 5,03,23,960/- has taken place. ii. The return of income field by assessee is processed on 30th December, 2010 at the same income. iii. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer stated that he has reason to belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the extent of above sum. 5. In response, the above notice on 7th April, 2016 and 24th May, 2016 along with copy of return of income already filed, requesting the same to treat return and response to above notice. 6. In response to the questionnaire about the transaction, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aondevi police station did not confirm the filing of the FIR and therefore, Assessing Officer asked assessee that why the credit entries in the bank account of M/s. PK Trading Company should not be added to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer tabulated the credit entries from FY 2008-09 to FY 2012-13. 10. Assessee submitted reply reiterating the same facts. Assessee further stated that same fraudulent third party has carried out the transactions in his name. The signatures are forged. He stated that the introducer is Mr. Satish Kundanmal Porwal, who is proprietor of M/s. Yash Impex as appearing from the findings of the investigating authorities. It was further stated that the KYC form was not filled by the assessee and the mobile number was of the introducer M/s. Yash Impex. Assessee pointed out that the copy of the Permanent Account Number card wherein the bank statement is affixed shows the date 7th April, 2007, and mobile bill dated 25th June, 2007, whereas date of the opening of the account is 18th January, 2008. Therefore assessee submitted that the documents of 2007 for opening a bank account in June 2008. Assessee also submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ap of nine months between attestation and opening the account? Ans. The PAN card is attested on 7 April 2007 for any other purpose of the party and may have kept the Xerox copy of the attested PAN the same Xerox is submitted for opening the account. As far as telephone bill is concerned it pertains to the bill date 21 January 2007 which was 21 submitted for opening the account. 13. Please give details of the introducer of account of M/s. PK Trading Ans. The introducer of this account is M/s. Yash impex proprietor Shri Satish Kundanmal Porwal who is owning PAN No AADPP9461D 14. Is the account of M/s. Yash Impex proprietor Shri Satish Kunnanme Porwal operative as on date? Ans. No. the account is inoperative and closed on 8 September 2009 am providing the account opening form of M/s. Yash Impex proprietor Shin Satish Kundanmal Porval along with copies of thanks giving letter. 15. Please confirm whether this account is opened in your branch by Shri Nayan Arvind Lalan or someone else has opened the account in his name. Ans. From the records available in the branch, I am of the opinion that the account was opened personally by Shri Nayan Arvind Lalan as proprietor of M/s. P.K. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h police or further proceeding regarding the said case and his inability to produce Shri Satish Kundanmal Porwal before the police, bank manager or before the undersigned can be viewed as a way out to escape from the tax liability As such the assessee simply made baseless allegations and challenged the re-opening of assessment. It is very much clear that the case was reopened within the purview of income Tax Act and there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment & not due to change of opinion for reopening assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case laws quoted are not fitting into the four corners of assesses case. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any substantial evidence provided by the assessee to prove otherwise that the account is not opened and operated by him, the credit transaction of Rs. 5,03,23,960/- is added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act.. Penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thereto for the same are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing taxable income. 17. During the year under consideration, the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee. 6.3 The appellant had not explained whether he had any business or longer period of about 5 years and the probability of operating any account for a longer period by a third person without being caught is very less. 6.4 The Chief Manager of UBI in his statement has stated categorically that no person can open account in name of any third party in his branch. He also stated that signature of the appellant on his PAN card and account opening form seems to be identical. For opening the bank account, the assessee had submitted his photograph, copy of ration card no. 020605 in his father's name wherein his name appears at sr. no. 3, copy of his PAN Card no. ACDPL5255B, mobile bill for his mobile no. 9820997621. 6.5 As stated by the appellant, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has directed the police to conduct enquiry vide order dated 13.12.2017. Investigation of Police is under progress and next date before Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaon is fixed on 29.11.2018. The AR of the assessee was asked to tell about the possible time period by which the criminal case is likely to be completed However, he had no definite answer. Therefore, it is felt that the time taken to decide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss examination of bank manager. For the first ground assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67 (Bom).For second proposition assessee relied on CIT vs. Odeon Builder Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 17 SCC 311. 18. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the additional ground. However, as these are legal grounds, does not require any further facts to be investigated, goes to the root of the matter, we admit the same. 19. Coming to the first Additional ground that whether Provisions of Section 68 of the Act can be applied or not in deposits in the bank statements. We find that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of shri Arunkumar J. Muchhala Vs. CIT 319 ITR 256 (Bom), wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that where huge amounts credited to the bank account of the assessee, source of which is not explained, the provision of section 68 of the Act are applicable. While deciding so, Honourable High court also considered decision relied up on in CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (supra) in paragraph no. 7. In view of this, we dismiss additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransferring from CD 36046 of Rs. 1 lakh each in the bank account credited and withdrawn in cash subsequently was carried out. xii. On 29th October, 2008, the credit of Rs. 39,61,000/- was received and on 29th October, 2012, itself Rs. 26,60,000/- was transferred to Yash Impex. xiii. Like these transactions were carried out where sum is received and paid from Pushparatna Avenue. xiv. Therefore, on examination of the bank account, from 18th October, 2008, to 18th October, 2016 sum of Rs. 9,81,61,540/- has been deposited in this bank account and same have been withdrawn on the date of credit or within a short span of time leaving a meager sum as balance of Rs. 125.57 paisa. 23. Assessee has filed the complaint before police. The assessee has also approached bank manager of Union Bank of India placed at page no. 14 onwards. All these request of the assessee remain unanswered. 24. Glaring fact remains that all the transactions mostly received in this bank account are transfer entries from CD A/c no. 36046 of the same bank. In answer to question no. 13, Chief Manager Union Bank of India in his statement dated 19th December, 2016, has categorically stated that introducer of this A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Manager. There is no information whether this letter was served to the account holder as well introducer. Further, on the same date letter was issued to Yash Impex but there is no indication how it reached to the introducer also. Only purpose of welcome letter is to confirm that information, mainly address, submitted at the time of opening of account is correct, and if that person has not opened bank account, he may immediately revert to bank. There is no evidence to this effect. Further, the cheques issued for withdrawal of cash from the bank account in the denomination of Rs. 1 lacs each which are not less than 100 in numbers, who take away this cash from the bank and who signed on the back of the cheques for receipt of cash was also not stated either by the banker and nor inquired by the learned Assessing Officer. In his statement Bank Manager promised to produce used cheques, however, same were not received by the learned Assessing Officer. Furthermore, several cheque books were issued to the account holder, how those have been issued is also not known and at whose request. Mandatorily, bank sends cheque book at the registered address of the account holder through post/courier.....