TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s challenged the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, neither any approval is taken by the Learned Assessing Officer as mandated under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 nor is any such approval provided to the Appellant. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of Learned Assessing Officer by treating, merely on presumptions, that the Appellant has business turnover of Rs. 41,52,525/- in the relevant AY, by relying on information supplied by a third party and applying excessive deemed profit @ 21.67% on this turnover and erred in adding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer, Raipur, wherein the Appellant has categorically and emphatically denied his indulgence in any transaction with M/s. Hind Energy And Coal Beneficiation (1) Limited. This statement recorded on oath has also been relied upon by the Appellant in the assessment proceedings before the Learned Assessing Officer. 6. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has also erred in confirming addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer towards amounts credited in HDFC Bank A/c of the Appellant in the name of M/s. Hind Energy and Coal Beneficiation (1) Limited - Rs. 15,00,000/- on 18.01.2012 (relating to FY 2011- 12) and Rs. 59,76,720/- credited on 31.05.2012 (relating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from Hind Energy and Coal Benefication (1) Ltd., for Rs. 74,76,720/-, it is found that the assessee has claimed that he did not know anything about the said transaction as the transaction was utilized by Sh. Santosh Soni. However, as discussed above that he could not discharge his onus by submitting any evidence. Merely giving statement that Sh. Santosh Soni will be knowing about the same is not sufficient for discharging his primary onus. Even neither any confirmation of Sh. Santosh Soni was filed by the assessee nor he present that person phycially so as to confront the issue. Further, the address given by him was also not found. In all, it is conclusively said that the assessee has not discharge his onus in respect of the said entry in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. ................................................. 10. In the present case, the assessee had received that amount of Rs. 74,76,720/- by way of transfer followed by cash withdrawal and further transfers is treated as unexplained money. Moreover, the assessee found to be the owner of the Money appearing in her bank accounts, established through KYC of the Bank. The assessee was found owner of the Money but has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the genuine source of such Money found in his bank accounts. The scheme of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would show that in cases where the nature and source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by the assessee is not explained at all, or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT(A), who decided the appeal without considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee. For not admitting the additional evidences, Ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: "The reply filed by the appellant is considered. The claim made by the appellant before me is very vague and contradictory. For example, the appellant claims that 'Further, the above said credit amount was not withdrawn in cash, its immediately transferred in other accounts either on same date or in next date' while in next sentence he argues that, 'Both debit and credit parties in bank account are not related to the assessee. It is important to note that, the appellant had not filed any explanation before the AO during the course of assessment ....