TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 04.09.2025 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,83,90,309/- as Unexplained Money u/s. 69A of the Act for the year under consideration. 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in quashing the Assessment Order for the year under consideration." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). For the assessment year 2018-19, the assessee did not file its return of income under section 139(1) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee placed various evidences on record explaining both the time deposits as well as the interest income. The evidences included detailed bank statements, ledger accounts of fixed deposits, interest income accounts and reconciliation with Form 26AS. These documents demonstrated that the deposits were not unexplained but were duly recorded in the books of account of the trust and represented application and accumulation of funds in the ordinary course of its activities. 6. The CIT(Appeals), in order to verify the correctness of the evidences, called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, in the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer failed to examine the additional evidences and merely reiterated the findings gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(Appeals) further held that the addition under section 69A of the Act cannot be made merely on the basis of non-filing of return or non-compliance during assessment proceedings, especially when the assessee subsequently had furnished complete evidences explaining the nature and source of the deposits. The CIT(A) held that once the assessee discharges the primary onus by furnishing documentary evidences, the burden shifts on the Assessing Officer to rebut the same with cogent material, which was not done in the present case. 10. The CIT(Appeals) also observed was that the Assessing Officer, even at the remand stage, did not undertake any independent verification of the bank statements or ledger accounts and failed to point out any spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent proceedings were initiated only on the basis that the assessee had not filed its return of income for the year under consideration, though information was available on the Insight Portal that the assessee had made time deposits aggregating to Rs. 1,43,42,481/- and had earned interest income of Rs. 40,47,828/-. In the absence of compliance during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame the assessment ex parte under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act and treated the entire amount of time deposits and interest income aggregating to Rs. 1,83,90,310/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 16. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee furnished complete detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer to rebut the same with credible material. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) / [1986] 25 Taxman 80 (SC) has held that where the assessee has furnished basic evidences, the onus shifts to the Department and no addition can be sustained merely on suspicion. Similarly, in CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the onus to prove that a particular receipt is income lies on the Revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002]....