TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under consideration on 29.07.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The return was processed. Subsequently, based on the Annual Information Return (AIR) information, it came to the notice of the Department that cash aggregating to Rs. 13,01,500/- had been deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee during the relevant previous year. The AO, being of the prima facie view that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, recorded reasons and issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 14.03.2017. 2.2 In response, the assessee contended that the said deposits were not his income but represented an arrangement with one Shri Siraj Lakdawala, a Visa Consultant associated with M/s. Vibrant International, who had deposited funds in a joint bank account opened in the names of the assessee, his family members and the said consultant, to demonstrate sufficient balance for the purpose of obtaining student visa and dependent visa for the assessee's son and daughter-in-law for studies in the United Kingdom. It was explained that the amount of Rs. 13,01,000/- was deposited by the consultant himself, subsequently withdrawn, and also that interest of Rs. 1,95,000/- was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that at the stage of initiation of proceedings under section 147, what is required is "reason to believe" and not conclusive proof, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (236 ITR 34). He further observed that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim of loan/temporary arrangement with any cogent documentary evidence. On the contrary, the statement of Shri Lakdawala recorded on oath clearly denied having advanced any funds to the assessee and attributed the deposits to the assessee himself. The CIT(A) held that mere assertion or self-serving statements could not displace the statutory presumption under section 69A in the absence of corroboration. He also placed reliance on Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (262 ITR 407) (SC) and a recent decision of ITAT Rajkot Bench in Kantilal Lallubhai Shah v. ITO [2024] 151 taxmann.com 230, wherein similar addition of cash deposits was upheld. Consequently, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,01,000/- made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 2.7 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not the assessee's regular account but was opened jointly with the travel agent solely for temporary visa requirements. It was submitted that the entire sequence of transactions namely, deposit of cash by the travel agent in November- December 2009, withdrawal in May 2010, and closure of account in June 2010, clearly established that the funds never belonged to the assessee. The denial of ownership by the travel agent when examined, it was argued, was not sufficient to dislodge the objective documentary evidences showing his involvement. 3.2 The learned Authorised Representative further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570, SC), for the proposition that rejection of explanation does not automatically justify addition under section 69/69A, as the provision is enabling and discretionary. Particular reliance was placed on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in Ashwani Kumar v. ITO (ITA No. 81/Asr/2018, order dated 24.12.2021). In that case also, the assessee had opened and operated a bank account under the control of a travel agent for the purpose of obtaining a visa, wherein substantial cash deposits were made and withdrawn ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....first holder, the assessee was the second holder, and the travel agent was the third holder. iii. The fact that immediately after the issuance of the visa, an amount of Rs. 13,07,341/- was withdrawn from the said account, through a cheque signed jointly by the assessee's wife and Shri Siraj Lakdawala, thereby showing that the operation of the account and control over withdrawals was with the travel agent. iv. Copy of the account closure letter dated 18.06.2010, also signed by Shri Siraj Lakdawala, evidencing that the account itself was opened for the limited purpose of visa processing and was closed once the objective was achieved. 5.3 The above evidences clearly establish the nexus of the travel agent with the impugned deposits and withdrawals and significantly dilute the Revenue's case that the cash belonged to the assessee. It is not in dispute that the assessee had declared a small income of Rs. 1,30,000/- only and had no demonstrated financial capacity to deposit Rs. 13,01,000/-. 5.4 We find merit in the submission of the assessee that the denial by the travel agent, when examined on oath, cannot override the objective evidences emanating from contempor....