Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai dated 23.07.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income of ₹.76,95,160/-. The return was not e-filed. It was filed vide letter dated Nil. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2013 was issued and duly served on the assessee. Despite various opportunities given, the assessee has not complied with any of the notices/summons. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed best judgement assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2015 by assessing total income at ₹.23,40,59,507/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee to substantiate her case before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR has seriously objected to the submissions of the ld. Counsel and also submitted that the assessee has not brought on record any details relating to the transactions.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. On perusal of the assessee’s bank statement, the Assessing Officer has noted that there are huge cash deposits on various dates in the bank account of the assessee amounting to ₹.23,40,59,507/-. It was also noticed from the bank statement that 99% of the cash deposits are immediately followed by transfer to one M/s. Film Fabricators. It was further noted that the address of the bank account statement and the introducer of the assessee to the bank M/s. Film Fabricators [Sole Proprietorship concern of one Shri S. Mahendra Kumar Jain] are same as the address of Film Fabricators which is No. 5, Kesava Iyer Street, Chennai 600 003. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee is not engaged in any business and the income of the assessee is the cash deposits which can at best be treated as income from other sources and accordingly brought to tax.
6.1 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), despite various opportunities given, neither the assessee appeared nor filed any written submission and hence, the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of materials available on record. From the records, the ld. CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee in her covering letter enclosing the return of income stated that the maximum peak credit was applied by her for arriving at the returned income of ₹.71,00,000/-. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not offered any explanation about the transactions in her bank account. Until and unless the assessee owns up all the cash credits in the books of account, the benefit of peak credit cannot be extended. The assessee has not offered any source for the transactions. The amounts have been transferred to another account and the addresses of the transferor and the transferee are same. The amount is not one in the nature of ‘squared off account’ or ‘squared up transactions’. Therefore, on merits, the ld. CIT(A) has held that peak credit principle cannot be applied in the case of the assessee and by following various decisions cited in his order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment of ₹.23,40,59,.507/- made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.
6.2 Before the Tribunal, the assessee has not at all furnished any explanation relating to the source for the transactions in her bank account and thus, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue on merits no interference is warranted in the absence of any explanation relating to the bank transactions was brought on record.
6.3 So far as the plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is concerned, the assessee, neither filed any explanation about the transaction either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Without filing any details, the ld. Counsel, requesting to remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) is a strange request. We are of the opinion that, prima facie, the assessee is not having any details and if at all the assessee wants to file some details, she should have been filed the details before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the prayer of the ld. Counsel for remitting the matter is of no merits and accordingly rejected.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 12th April, 2022 at Chennai.