TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Grounds raised are as under : "1. That the appellate order is bad in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the Ld, CIT (Appeals) has erred in law that appellant could not prove that the money deposited in the bank account was from business activity and hence addition-made u/s 69A of Rs. 20,84,500/- is sustained. The contention of CIT(Appeals) is not true. Appellant was engaged in share trading on behalf of his relatives from whom he had received cash which was deposited in bank account. The affidavits provided by relative prove that payment of cash for share trading. 3. Any other ground as deem fit at the time of hearing of appeal." 2. The solitary issue in the present case relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or his relatives and friends. He opened a share broking account in his own name with M/s. Master Capital Services Ltd., Agra and M/s. Raghunandan Industries P. Ltd., Agra. The appellant has filed financial statement/ledger from the share brokers named above. On perusal of the same it is found that the entire transactions of shares and derivatives are taking place against the appellant's name as client. There is no evidence that those share transactions are related to any other persons as claimed by the assessee. The appellant is not a share broker or sub broker and therefore it is strange as to how he can start doing share trading for his relatives and friends who should have a separate client code and agreement with the broker. Each cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he source of cash deposits in his bank account with verifiable evidences which the appellant has failed. 5.4 During the appellate proceedings, the assessee also submitted name along with amounts and affidavits of the clients from whom the cash was claimed to have received and deposited in the assessee's bank account. During the assessment proceedings also such vague claim of receipt of cash from different friends and relatives were made, but no party wise break up of cash received or affidavits from those persons were filed. The assessee had not given any reason for nonproducing these documents or filing specific party wise details before the AO. The affidavits submitted by the assessee are also not found genuine as all these a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en in cash. 5. We do not find the same sufficient reason for dismissing the affidavits as non-genuine. Merely because the affidavits are identically worded or given on the same date, it does not impinge on their genuineness. Also, the fact that they are given 12-13 years after the date of transactions is of no relevant for stating that the affidavits are nongenuine. In fact, the requirement of obtaining affidavits itself arose only when the assessee's case came up for scrutiny and the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash. As long as the parties, who have given cash, confirmed this fact and there is no substantial infirmity pointed out in the affidavits, we find the act of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in rejecting these affidavits as ....