TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 13,85,200/- according to the provisions of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961, and, therefore, after recording reasons and obtaining approval from the Competent Authority, Notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 which was duly served on 26.03.2018. In compliance to the Notice issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, e-return of income declaring total income of Rs. 60,000/- was filed on 31.10.2018. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 12.11.2018 and was duly served to the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 25.10.2018, fixing the case for hearing on 31.10.2018. None attended nor any reply was filed. Notice u/s 142(1) was again issued on 12.11.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 19.11.2018. In response to the said Notice issued, Shri K.C. Tater, CA & AR of the assessee attended the hearing and filed part reply to the information required through above Notice. Notices u/s 142(1) was issued on 24.11.2018, 01.12.2018, 11.12.2018 & 17.12.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 26.11.2018, 04.12.2018, 31.12.2018 & 19.12.2018 respectively for submitting remaining information/details, but no compliance was made to the above Notices by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted in below:- "1.1 The appellant is an individual, having salary income and income/loss from capital gain. For the year under consideration, the appellant has salary income of Rs. 60,000/- and Loss from commodity transactions to the tune of Rs. 17,94,549. Due to the heavy losses in commodity market transactions and salary income of Rs. 60,000/- which is below the basic exemption limit of Rs. 1,60,000 for AY 2011-12, the appellant did not file the income tax return u/s 139(1) of the income tax Act 1961. 1.2 Going forward, the income tax department has issued the notice u/s 148 of the income tax Act 1961 on 26.03.2018 based on the reasons to believe that there is escapement of income of Rs. 13,85,200/-. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the income tax Act 1961, the appellant has filed the income tax return vide acknowledgment no. 366342930311018 dated 31.10.2018 and same was processed under section 147/143(3) of the Act by the ITO Ward-5, Bhilwara determining the total income at Rs. 15,32,750/-. While passing the assessment order, the assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 14,72,754....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant was having the salary income of Rs. 60,000/-. Other than salary income and his past savings in the form of Gold/Silver ornaments and cash/gifts received in his marriage, appellant does not have any other source of income. Since the appellant has incurred the losses in to the commodity market transactions beyond his capacity, he had no other option to left with to liquidate the gold and silver ornaments received in his marriage and of his close relatives and to recover the loans and advances given by him as mentioned in the individual balance sheet as at 15.12.2010 submitted before the respondent. 1.5 To repay the loss incurred in commodity market transactions, the appellant has liquidated the Gold and Silver Ornaments received in his marriage into the cash of Rs. 4,52,000 (20 Tola of Gold and 2 kg of Silver). The appellant recovered Rs. 6,95,000 from the Loans and advances given by him in cash. Apart from the above money he had Rs. 2,38,200 as his past savings like Gifts/money received in his marriage or with his wife. The appellant altogether deposited the cash totaling to Rs. 13,85,200 into his bank account and repaid the to the Paras Commo Broking Pvt Ltd for losses inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the provisions of section 69A invoking in the instant case by the assessing officer is not justified and bad in the eyes of law. 1.8 Furthermore, In the case of SMT. TEENA BETHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (BANG-Trib.) :(2019) 72 TLC 314, the Hon'ble ITAT- Bangalore held in para no. 7.3.3 of its order which is reproduced as under: 7.3.3 On a reading of section 69A (supra), it is clear that the onus is upon the AO to find the assessee to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article was not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by the assessee for any source of income. In these circumstances, the AO can resort to making an addition under section 69A of the Act only in respect of such monies/assets/articles or things which are not recorded in the assessee's books of account. In the case on hand, the cash deposits are recorded in the books of account and are reportedly made on the receipt from a creditor Further, the PAN and address of the creditor as well as ledger account copies of the creditor in the assessee's books of account have also been field before the AO. In these circu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account and the addition of Rs. 14,72,754 made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the respondent by invoking the provisions of sections 69A of the Act, is not justified in the eyes of the law & hence be quashed at your end. PRAYER In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-Jodhpur may be pleased to:- 1. Quash the Ground no. 1 of the present appeal dismissed by the respondent. 2. Allow submission of additional documents and details at the time of hearing. 3. Grant a personal hearing and 4. Pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has not substantiated amount deposit in the bank account with evidence to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the judicial precedent cited by both the parties to drive home their respective contentions. The Bench noted that in this case the ld. AO has made a sum of Rs. 14,72,754/- is added which is d....