Case Law Details
Parmesh Chand Yadav S/o Rameshwar Lal Yadav Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court)
We find considerable force in the submission of leaned counsel for revenue that bank transactions alone are not sufficient to verify the trade in Crypto currency rather, the assessee ought to have submitted before the authority the relevant ledger statement evidencing that he had entered into trade of Crypto currency in the manner as has been asserted by him by way of the information stated by him. Whether it was the volume of the trade which is reflected in the total amount of Rs.4,65,72,546/-or it was an investment made in the Crypto currency without any withdrawal therefrom would essentially be a matter for consideration upon perusal of the Crypto currency ledger.
May be because of this reason, the authority was of the view that the information regarding trade in Crypto currency is not verified.
However, we find that the authority has considered, though in brief, the reply of the petitioner at this stage only for the purpose of deciding whether proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be drawn. In our considered opinion, the exercise which has been undertaken by the authority fulfilled the legal requirement of Section 148(A) of the Act, 1961.
Nevertheless, even now it would be open for the assessee to satisfy the authority by submitting the relevant Crypto currency ledger to verify the information as was submitted by him before the Assessing Officer in proceedings under Section 148A of the Act, 1961.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
