AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant a) by ignoring that the appellant was just a broker / facilitator for other investors whose money was given through his bank account to the companies and the shares were given to the actual investors by the companies and not the appellant, b) by ignoring that no personal benefit of any nature whatsoever was ever received by the assessee from this channelization of money of the investor as even the due commission was also not received by him, c) by ignoring the recommendation of his predecessor to the CIT(A) that the appellant is a facilitator and only some percentage of cash deposits should be assessed as his income, d) by refusing to accept the confirmations of the intermediary companies explaining the modus operandi and reasons of receipt of the money from the appellant and which were filed through speed post and received by the assessing officer before completion of the impugned assessment, e) by ignoring the evidences placed on record vide submissions dated 27/12/2017 of the assessing officer even though the assessment order was passed on 31/12/2017 and he ought to have considered the same in the assessment order, Thus, above addition so made on surmis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal benefit of any nature whatsoever was ever received by the assessee from this channelization of money of the investor as even the due commission was also not received by him, c) by ignoring the recommendation of his predecessor to the CIT(A) that the appellant is a facilitator and only some percentage of cash deposits should be assessed as his income, d) by refusing to accept the confirmations of the intermediary companies explaining the modus operandi and reasons of receipt of the money from the appellant and which were filed through speed post and received by the assessing officer before completion of the impugned assessment, e) by ignoring the evidences placed on record vide submissions dated 27/12/2017 of the assessing officer even though the assessment order was passed on 31/12/2017 and he ought to have considered the same in the assessment order, Thus, above addition so made on surmises and conjectures should be deleted. 3. The above three appeals directed against a common order passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively, having similar issues and the assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal (except differences in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted that the assessee is only acting on behalf of his brother in law who used to collect money from various persons and in return the money was handed over to the assessee who in turn use to deposit the said sum in his bank account and from the Assessee's bank the amount have been given to various Companies. Further contend that, the assessee is not the real owner of the sum deposited. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also drawn our attention on the various judicial pronouncements and submitted that the assessee is liable to be taxed only on 1% of the entire amount deposited to his bank account, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous. 9. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the A.O and CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not produced any document to substantiate the claim of the assessee before the A.O or before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be upheld. 10. We have heard the parties perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 11. There is no dispute that the amount of Rs. 1,07,64,950/- by way of cash has been deposited to the bank account of the assessee in the year under c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anerjee Vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112, the Hon'ble High Court held that when high denominations notes found to have been tendered by the assessee for conversion for which the assessee should offer satisfactory explanation, the disclosure must come from the assessee and not from the Department. The relevant portions are hereunder:- "" ................... ... Where the assesses was unable to prove that in his normal business or otherwise, he was possessed of so much cash, it was held that the assesses, started under a cloud and must dispel that cloud to the reasonable! satisfaction of t he assessing authorities and that if he did not, then, the department was free to reject his explanation, and to hold that - the amount represented Income from some undisclosed source, If there is receipt of an amount. In the accounting year, it. is incumbent in the first instance, upon the assessee to show that it does not bear the character of income. If he fails to do this, the ITO may hold that it represents income of the assessee either from the sources he has disclosed or from some undisclosed source. ............................If, however, the explanation is unconvincing and one which de....