2022 (6) TMI 1275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r erred in making an addition of Rs.33,33,677/- on account of cash deposits made during the year by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the deposits made in to the bank out of collections from various members of Co-operative Credit Society. The same was upheld by the CIT(A). 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that there was a delay in filing the appeal by 33 days. The Ld. counsel referred to the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the assessee society wherein he has submitted that due to pandemic environment in Mumbai, filing of appeal was delayed. He has further stated that there is no malafide intention in delaying the filing of appeal. In this case, the ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Ld. CIT(A) issued notices for hearing but in view of no compliance, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions, observing as under: "6.1 Grounds no. 1 and 2: These grounds or appeal ave related and hence are being taken up together. The appellant has earned interest income from fixed deposits worth Rs. 5,51,357/- The assessee admits that there was no return of income filed during the relevant assessment year due to internal problems in the cooperative society. In view of the same, the assessing officer is correct in adding back this interest as income of the assessee for the year in question. Further, as no return of income had been filed, there is no question of allowing deduction under section 80P of the Income tax Act. In view of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the owner of any money in terms of Section 69A of the said Act, the principle of Common Law Jurisprudence in Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 can be applied. In the case of Chuharmal v. C.I.T. reported in (1988) 3 SCC 588 it has been held by this Court that the word 'income' in Section 69A of the Income Tax Act has wide meaning which meant anything which came in as gain. In the present case, the assessee did not adduce any evidence to show that the aforestated amount did not belong to him. In the facts of this case, therefore, the Department was right in drawing inference that the assessee had the aforestated amount as his income which was subject to tax under Section 69A." The same was upheld in Leela Devi vs. ITO ITAT(DELHI).....