TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 663
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on facts in upholding the validity of proceedings u/s 147. CIT's decision on their point may kindly be negated and reversed. 2. Without prejudice to ground no.1 above the ld. CIT (A) was not justified on facts and law in confirming of Rs. 16,70,320/- made u/s 69A as unexplained money. The above addition may kindly be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. Further on verification of data available in ITD system, it was found that assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 19,90,120/- during F.Y. 2008-09 (relevant A.Y. 2009-10) in his savings bank account maintained with SBI, Morena. Therefore, case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following reasons as mentioned in para 5 of assessment order:- (i) The assessee has filed return of income u/s 44AD of Rs. 1,33,610/- on the total of Rs. 16,70,120/ But no bills vouchers and other document related to business are submitted (ii) The assessee has submitted that source of the cash deposited in saving bank account is his agriculture income. But no land ownership record is available. (iii) Assessee has nor submitted dildo of agriculture crops, details of expenses incurred for agriculture income etc. (iv) The assessee has submitted details of every entry of cash deposit with explanation. Considering his reply, only deposit of Rs. 3,20,000/- on 24.10.2008 appeared to be genuine. (v)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... competent authority, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Thus, this is very much evident that ld AO was having sufficient, cogent, reliable and relevant material to re-open the case by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The allegation of appellant that without prejudice to ground No.1 above, the AO was not justified in law and on facts in treating the amount of Rs. 16.70.120/ as unexplained cash deposit in the bank and adding it to the total income. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. V/S TO 236 ITR 34 (SC) has held that in determining whether commencement of re-opening proceedings are valid it has only to be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which department could re-open the case.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions that the family owned 240 bighas of land. Furthermore, assessee claimed that withdrawals made from bank account were also recycled and amount was redeposited in same bank account. However, ld. CIT (A) was not convinced and held as under :- "6.4 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission filed by the appellant inter alia facts of this case. At the outset, it is an admitted fact that the assessee neither filed return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 nor could explain the source of cash deposits or utilization of withdrawals made from Bank A/c. Neither any purchase or sales bills/invoices were produced before AO or undersigned to prove that any business activity was carried out by the appellant. As far as factum of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim the benefit of "peak credits". Following this ratio, I am of considered view that assessee does not deserve any benefit of "Peak credit". So I am of considered opinion that assessee is not entitled for any benefit for recycling & rotation of funds. It is trite law that onus to prove the cash deposited in Bank Account is on the assessee. I have no hesitation to say that appellant has utterly failed to discharge his onus and failed to furnish any cogent evidence neither before A.O nor before me to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposited to the tune of Rs. 16,70,120/-. It would not be out of place to refer to the decision of Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Chinnathamban (SC) 292 ITR 682 that cash deposits in Bank A/c ....