TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has failed to prove the genuineness/identity of debtors and that it was own capital of the assessee which has been given the colour of debtors so that the story of cash deposited during demonitization may be explained. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming this addition. 3. The assessee carves his right to add, amend or alter any ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that the case was selected for scrutiny under the limited scrutiny criteria to examine cash deposit for demonetization period (9th Nov. to 30th December) as reported as per specified financial transaction [SFT] reporting as to verify if the cash deposited was derived from disclosed sources. The case was converted for complete scrutiny vide PCIT-2 letter no. 1478 dated 22-12-2017. The assessee had filed her return of income on 31-03-2017 for the A.Y 15-16. The notice had been issued after selection through CASS on 16-09-2017 and the notice was sent through registered post. Ld. AO in the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- during demonetization period stating that the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y issuing them notice u/s. 133(6) of IT Act. As per the maxim "ACTORI INCUMBIT PROBATION" the burden to prove always lies with the appellant and here in this case the appellant utterly failed to produce the confirmation from the debtors. The appellant has not provided any details like PAN, address, email id etc of the debtors persons to whom such money has been lent by her. This shows non cooperative attitude of the appellant during whole assessment proceedings. Which was already taken into consideration by the AO while passing speaking order after analyzing all the aspects therefore action of the AO is upheld. From the above discussion the AO inferred that the appellant has not been able to substantiate her income to have arised from known sources and further failed to prove the genuineness of such income. The submissions made by the appellant during the appellate proceedings are carefully examined and this appellate authority held that the appellant has submitted the same facts as she had submitted during the course of assessment proceeding. Further, Reliance is also placed in this regard on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts before him. a) It was submitted that the assessee filed declaration under IDS 2016 at Chennai address in which income of Rs 25,00,000/- was disclosed. AO has observed in his order that the assesse did not submit any documentary evidence in support of this. b) It was further submitted before the AO that case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify that "whether cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources". c) It was submitted before the AO that no such cash was deposited in the bank account of the assessee during the relevant period of AY 2015-16 and copies of bank account were also filed before the AO. (Copies of these bank account are placed at Paper Book page No. 16 to 17) d) It was further informed to AO that it was not possible to obtain balance confirmation from debtors at short notice as notice dated 15/12/2017 was issued by AO requiring for filing of confirmation on or before 18/12/2017. Therefore request was made to seek confirmation under section 131/133(6) of Income Tax Act. Proceedings before CIT(A) a. Before the CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed submissions vide letter dated 13/5/2019 (copy is place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 19/9/20217 was issued ( copy at Pb page 14) to verify that: 'whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources.' b. In this case no cash was deposited in the bank account of the assesse during the year. This fact can be verified from the copy of bank accounts of the assesse. (Copy of bank accounts at Pb page no. 16-17.) Therefore, the requirement of Limited Scrutiny to verify the source of cash deposit in bank account was fulfilled. c. The learned AO has erred in holding on the first page of the assessment order that 'the case had been selected for scrutiny of the return for AY 2015-16 for limited scrutiny to examine 'cash deposit for demonetization period (9th Nov to 30th December) as reported as per SFT reporting. d. It is submitted that in the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 19/9/2017, there was no mandate to examine 'cash deposited for demonetization period'. The mandate was only for the cash deposited in the relevant previous year. In any case it is difficult to assume that a mandate was given to examine the ITR of AY 2015-16 to examine the source of cash deposited in AY 2017-18. e. The learned AO has made this addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke Unexplained Sundry Debtors. [2024] 166 taxmann.com 248 (Rajasthan) Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-I* Section 69A, read with sections 147, 148 and 148A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2020-21 - Assessing Officer issued on assessee-company a notice under section 148A(b) intimating that on investigation of documents in his possession it was seen that assessee during year had sold 13 plots in cash and sales consideration received by it remained unexplained and supplied documents to assessee - He thereafter passed an order under section 148A(d) stating that amount of sales consideration received in cash required to be reassessed - Whether stand taken by assessee that it had no knowledge about sale transaction by power of attorney holder was not a ground for revenue not to proceed against it - Held, yes - Whether since a detailed adjudication on merits of information available with Assessing Officer and defence set up by assessee is not contemplated at stage of passing an order under section 148A(d), writ petition was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of revenue]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. Confirmation of debtors which were available with the assesse were filed before CIT(A). 5. No evidence brought on record by the learned AO to support his wild allegations made against the asssessee: The learned AO has doubted the genuineness and identity of the Debtors without any basis, and has made wild allegations on the assesse that it was own capital of the assesse which has been given the color of debtors so that the story of cash deposited during demonetization may be explained. He has not brought on record any evidence to support his allegations. 6. Learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif V CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1, as the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. This case is applicable on amount received during the accounting year for which no satisfactory explanation about source is offered by the assessee. In our case, no amount was received by the assessee during the accounting year. Rather the addition has been made for the old debtors carried forward from earlier years by the assessee." 6. To suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer is that the case of the assessee was selected to verify the cash deposit. Thereafter the case was converted into full security. In the assessment proceeding ld. AO noted that the assessee had shown debtors amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-. Ld. AO asked for the various details of these debtors but the relevant documentary evidence were not submitted and thereby the ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. When the matter taken up before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the addition making reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT(1963) 50 ITR 1 wherein it was held that "If an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount received during the accounting year, the assessing officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of assessable nature." Before we deal with the ground no. 2 of the assessee we would like to see the provision of section 69A of the Act which reads as under : Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and su....