Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Malay Prasad Vs ACIT (ITAT Allahabad)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 32/ALLD/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/03/2021
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Malay Prasad Vs ACIT (ITAT Allahabad)

As could be seen from provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act that if any sum is found credited in the books of accounts maintained for any previous year , and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by the assessee is not , in the opinion of AO , satisfactory , the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year. There has been fresh cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee maintained with ICICI Bank to the tune of Rs. 3,22,68,500/- in the year under consideration which is sought to be explained by assessee to have been received from Mr. Anuj Sonkar and Mr. Siddharth Agarwal . The said amount is credited by assessee in its books of accounts in the ledger account of these two creditors. Mr. Anuj Sonkar has in statement recorded before AO has denied to have any financial transactions with the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee has not filed copies of income tax returns/statement of affair/Balance Sheets of these two creditors nor the assessee has filed confirmations from these parties. The identity of Mr. Anuj Sonkar is proved as he appeared before AO and furnished his Aadhar Card , but he categorically denied to have any financial transactions with the assessee during the year under consideration. The assessee did not asked for cross examination of Mr. Anuj Sonkar, The assessee could not prove identity of Mr. Siddharth Agarwal nor creditworthiness could be proved as neither copy of income tax return nor copies of Balance Sheet/Statement of affair was filed by assessee. The assessee also could not prove the purpose of granting these alleged cash amounts and even terms and conditions of these alleged credit entries were not brought on record by assessee, thus genuineness of these transactions could not be proved. Thus, in nut-shell the assessee did not discharged primary onus as is cast by the 1961 Act within the provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act. It is only when the primary onus is discharged by tax-payer , then the onus will shift to Revenue to bring on record cogent material to bring to tax income by way of cash credit within provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act which section creates a deeming fiction wherein cash credits which are not satisfactorily explained are deemed as income of the taxpayer , but in the instant case the assessee has miserably failed to discharge primary onus as is cast u/s 68 of the 1961 Act with respect to cash deposits in his bank accounts with ICICI bank to the tune of Rs. 3,22,68,500/- allegedly from these two creditors.

Thus, keeping in view entire factual matrix of the case as detailed above, we hold that the authorities below have rightly invoked provisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act and held that cash deposits in the assessee’s ICICI Bank accounts to the tune of Rs. 3,22,68,500/- was the money of the assessee which was deposited by assessee in his bank accounts, during the year under consideration , and these two creditors namely Mr. Anuj Sonkar and Mr. Siddharth Agarwal in whose name the assessee has allegedly shown to have credited these amounts are bogus creditors. We uphold the orders of authorities below and hold that Section 68 was rightly invoked in the instant case. We order accordingly.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT ALLAHABAD

This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 32/Alld/2020, is directed against appellate order dated 19.12.2019 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Allahabad/10226/2017-18 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals,)Allahabad(hereinafter called “theCIT(A)”),for assessment year(ay)2015-16, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 23.12.2017 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3)of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”) for ay: 2015-16.We have heard learned CIT-DR through video conferencing mode through virtual court, while none appeared for assessee.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031