TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: The assessee and his family members run various business concerns that are grouped together under the umbrella of M/s.Sreevalsam Group of concerns. There was a search conducted under Section 132 of the I.T. Act at the residential and office premises of the proprietors and the business concerns on 08.06.2017, pursuant to which, a notice was issued to the assessee under Section 153A of the I.T. Act on 03.08.2018. The respondent/assessee, is a partner to the extent of 39% in one of the partnership concerns namely, M/s.Money Muttam Finance, and has a limited shareholding of approximately 11% and 15% respectively in M/s.Mooneymuttathu Nidhi Limited and M/s.Allebasi Builders and Developers (P) Limited. His wife and children are proprietors and partners respectively in other business concerns that come under the umbrella of M/s.Sreevalsam group. The respondent/assessee and his family members, as well as all the entities of the group, are separately assessed to income tax and it is not disputed that the respondent/assessee does not hold any position in the management and control of the majority of the firms/corporate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w in deleting the additions made in the hands of the assessee in respect of credits from the 38 Nagaland based banks received in the bank account of the assessee, his family members, others, ignoring the given fact of said Nagaland accounts being under control of family member, no evidence led to substantiate the explanation offered, ignoring the sworn statements made under Sec.132(4) of the Act, thereby the genuineness of the transactions as per the mandate of the provisions of section 68 of the Act including the first proviso provided thereunder remaining undischarged ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that cash deposited in bank account of the assessee, to the extent of cash deposits in the Nagaland based accounts of family members, others, stood explained ignoring the fact that lower authorities had rejected the cash flow statement on ground of lack of evidence and further no evidence was furnished for claim of contract work/consultancy income ? 3. Whether Appellate Tribunal is justified in interfering with order of CIT (A) and in deleting the various additions sustained by the CIT (A) and are not the findings of fact by the Tribunal perverse, unc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is was particularly significant because it was an admitted fact that the other family members and group concerns of the assessee were assessees in their own right before the Income Tax Authorities and subject to separate assessments under the I.T. Act. Following the said findings, the Appellate Tribunal held as follows in paragraphs 12 and 13 of its order: "12. Out of credit entries aggregating to Rs.131.26 Crores the assessee group made IDS, 2016 disclosure for Rs.21.13 Crores which include assessee's disclosure of Rs.6.81 Crores and other family members' disclosure of Rs.14.31 Crores. The requisite forms, declarations including Form 3 has been placed in the paper-book which would dispel the concern raised by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The other family members made payment of Rs.4.58 Crores for subsequent transfers which have no connection with the present assessee. The unsecured loans received from these parties aggregated to Rs.88.41 Crores out of which loans of Rs.11.72 Crores has been received by the assessee (Rs.3.22 Crores from Shri G.K. Rengma and Rs.8.49 Crores from M/s Excellence Associates). The remaining amount of Rs.17.11 Crores was proposed to be disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income of the assessee under this head to an amount of Rs.5,44,90,000/-. 9. As for the cash deposits received in the bank accounts of the assessee, his family members and group concerns, the Appellate Tribunal found that, apart from adding the cash deposits found in all the accounts to the total income of the assessee towards unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, the authorities below had also rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amounts received by him were by way of loan from persons in Nagaland. Based on its earlier finding that the Revenue had not established that the bank accounts held by the other family members and group concerns actually belong to the assessee himself, the cash deposits in the said accounts were directed to be excluded from the additions made to the taxable income of the assessee. As regards the amount of Rs.6.26 crores that remained as a cash deposit in the assessee's own bank account, the Tribunal found that an amount of Rs.26.48 lakhs was already dealt with in the assessment for the assessment year 2018-19 that was subsequently set aside, and hence, could not be taken into account. In respect of the balance a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to Revenue, were not satisfactorily explained by the assessee for the purposes of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. In support of her contention, she would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. - [(2019) 412 ITR 161 (SC)]. 13. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the statutory burden cast on an assessee confronted with a notice that sought an explanation for cash credits in his accounts, was only to establish to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer the proof of identity of the creditors, the capacity of creditors to advance money and the genuineness of the transaction. He places reliance on the decision in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income Tax - [(1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC)] to contend that once an assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, then it is for the Assessing Officer to conduct a further enquiry and call for more details before invoking Section 68 of the I.T. Act. It is his submission that it is only if the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory....