TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion for accepting cash from others and issuing cheques in return thereof. The impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the facts of the case and is liable to be set aside. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had discharged his onus by submitting the source and nature of deposits of Rs.3,95,46,000/-. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had discharged his onus by submitting the source and nature of deposits of Rs.3,95,46,000/- made in his accounts with Punjab National Bank, Greater Bombay Co-Operative Bank by furnishing name, address and PAN of the concern depositors and thus had offered sufficient explanation. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,51,000/- in respect of deposits made in Karnataka Bank Ltd without appreciating that the assessee had furnished a valid explanation in respect of this amount. 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that none of the ingredients specified in section 69A of the IT Act was satisfied in the facts of the case and the addition of Rs.3,98,97,000/- made contrary to the provisions of law is liable to be set aside. 7. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l was again submitted by the assessee. The AO issued a final show cause notice as to why the cash deposited in assessee's bank account be not treated as an unexplained cash deposit. After considering assessee's reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the AO vide order dated 30/01/2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w 254 of the Act held that the assessee failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and thus could not discharge the onus cast upon him by not producing the parties and has not established the alleged source of cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account. Accordingly, the AO treated the cash amounting to Rs. 3,98,97,133, as unaccounted cash under section 69A and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The relevant findings of the AO, in this regard, are as under: "Decisions 5.0 The contentions of the assessee are considered, but are found to be not acceptable on the basis of following facts and circumstances: i) The details filed by the assessee is examined and verified, in the pursuance of Hon'ble ITAT direction. The assessee has heavily relied on the affidavit dt. 16.11.2011. Further, to verify the truthfulne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tibal Rabial Vs. CIT (MP) 146 ITR 140 and Silk Museum Vs. CIT (Gu)] 257 ITR 22 it is held that an affidavit is a piece of evidence, which along with other material on record, has to be taken into consideration before arriving at a finding. A statement by a deponent can be held to be unreliable either on the basis of cross examination of the deponent or by reference to other material on record. vi) In this case certain cash deposits are made in the Bank accounts. The nature and source of the deposits made is not proved by the assessee after having ample opportunities. It is important to mention that the assessee is also involved in other business activities. The assessee has full knowledge of law and facts. He submitted on oath that he has maintained books of accounts for business. But not taken into account in books of accounts of the cash received. It is also noted that cash deposits were made in more than one bank. This indicates the clear intention and planned manner to evade the tax liability. Those transactions of cash deposits and cheques issued were done for commission income is also not supported the truthful and correct facts. In the return of income filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that the cash doesn't belong to him. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A), in the impugned order, are as under: "5.5 I have carefully gone through the assessment order and submission of the assessee made during the appellate proceedings. There is no dispute that the bank accounts in which cash was deposited belong to the assessee and were operated by him. He also accepted that the cash was deposited by him. The bank accounts and the transactions were not disclosed by him to the department in the returns filed. The transactions came to the notice of the department because of AIR information. It is the assessee who made these huge transactions in his own account and not shown to the department. It is his claim that he deposited cash belonging to other persons in his bank accounts and gave cheques to them. If this is the explanation of the assessee, it needs to be supported by evidence. The entire onus is on the assessee to explain the transactions in the bank accounts: Only PAN numbers of the parties and cheque numbers of cheques given by him are not supporting documents to prove his version of explanation. If the story is to be believed, the following documents/ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e used for the deposit of cash and in turn issued cheques in favour of the parties from cash was received. The learned AR submitted that the assessee earned commission, however, the same was not offered for taxation by the assessee. Learned AR further submitted that the assessee provided the name and PAN No. of the parties, which were available with him. However, the assessee could not produce the parties before the AO, in compliance with notices, in order to substantiate its claim. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, on the basis of AIR information, it was found that the assessee had deposited a huge amount of cash in its bank account. Accordingly, during the 1st round of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit the source of the cash deposit. In reply, the assessee submitted that he deposited the cash belonging to the parties in his bank account and gave cheques to them for the same. The assessee provided the details of the parties but could ....