Case Law Details
Ashish Natvarlal Vashi Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
Conclusion- Cash deposited in bank was transferred to insurance company by way of insurance premium in the name of respective insurer – Assessee acted as facilitator and not the owner of the cash deposited in bank account – Addition not possible under section 69A.
Facts- The assessee deposited cash of INR 26,77,200 and INR 21,71,644 in his bank account. Assessee having main source of income as salary was question the source of cash deposited. Assessee explained that he collected these amounts from the investors and provided facility to make investment in various investment plans.
Assessee had fully discharged his onus of explaining the source of deposits in the bank account particularly with evidences, hence there was no reason for the assessing officer to make addition under section 69A of the Act.
The assessee was never found to be the owner of the impugned deposits in the said bank accounts particularly in view of the fact that all the said deposits were immediately transferred to the insurance company by way of insurance premium in the names of the respective insurers and hence there was no question of not recording such investment in the books of accounts of the assessee in as much as there was no investment of the assessee himself. It can be seen from the copies of premium receipts that the mode of payment i.e. demand draft numbers and bank details were mentioned in the premium receipts which showed that the premiums in the names of insurers were paid through the assessee’s impugned bank accounts. Therefore, the assessee was only facilitator and was not the owner of the money deposited in his bank accounts.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
