TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC dismissing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. I. JURISDICTION : 2. The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s.148 of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) NFAC failed to appreciate that there was no escaping assessment in the file of Individual status, since the cash deposits in the bank account pertain the HUF business and duly returned in HUF status and hence the reopening in Individual status was untenable in law. 4. The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that there is improper recording of satisfaction for issuing notice u/s.14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) NFAC, in any event, ought to have seen that the cash deposits pertain to the HUF business and is to be considered only in that status and the addition in Individual status is improper and unsustainable on the facts of case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of commission and also earning salary from M/s.Sri Andal and Co. and had not filed the return of income for the A.Y.2012-13. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made a cash deposit of Rs. 69,75,000/- in his bank account and issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 27.03.2019, based on the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posits of Rs. 69,75,000/- and sources for credit card payments etc. In response, the assessee's AR Sri R. Gopal appeared and filed a letter on 04.12.2019 giving the same explanation as mentioned above and there was no word regarding sources for cash deposits made during the F.Y.2011-12. This is not satisfactory. The sources for cash deposits of Rs. 69,75,000/- are not furnished so this amount of Rs. 69,75,0000/- is treated as unexplained money from unexplained sources and is added in the taxable income. Hence, the assessment is completed by making addition of Rs. 69,75,000/- u/s 69A in the returned income. The revised total income is computed as under: Total income admitted Rs. 9,27,760/- ADD: Addition stated as above Rs. 69....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his accounts in balance sheet of HUF.The HUF has a total turnover of Rs. 22,43,718/- and the accounts in question are not related to HUF at all. The records obtained from the bank also prove the same. Further, regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 69,75,000/- for the year 2012-13, the appellant has failed to give any satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of the deposit. So, I have no reason to interfere with the addition of Rs. 69,75,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 4.1 In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed." Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is before us. 5. The ld.AR of the assessee stated that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not part of the individual accounts. Thus, the ld.AR prayed for deleting the additions by setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 6. Per contra, the ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the same. 7. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of lower authorities below. Admittedly the assessee is an individual had not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13. The AO based on the information obtained found that the cash deposit of Rs. 69.75 Lakhs has been made into the bank accounts during the impugned assessment year and reopened the assessment of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had stated th....