KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1596/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 January 2018AY 1996-974 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the deposit. Since the assessee failed to explain the source and genuineness of the deposit at any stage, the addition was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited US $2000 in a foreign bank account but could not explain the source of the deposit. The assessee claimed to be an old age person with physical and mental disability, unable to recollect the source.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of unexplained deposits in a foreign bank account is justified when the assessee fails to provide the source and genuineness of the deposit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Ms. N. Hemalatha-DR
Hearing: 03/01/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/11/2016 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the addition of Rs.69,680/- on account of undisclosed income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

2.

During hearing, Shri Harish P. Kenia, ld. counsel for the assessee, advanced arguments, which is identical to the ground raised by contending that the assessee is an old age person deposited a sum of Rs.2000 US $ in the foreign bank account of the assessee on 22/11/1995 and due to physical and mental disability could not explain the source of the deposit. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Ms. N.

Hemalatha, strongly contended that the source of the deposit could not be explained, therefore, the addition was rightly made.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee deposited 2000 US $ in UBS AG, Zurich bank account. The assessee could not explain the source of such deposit and thus the addition was made u/s 68 of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the assessee took the stand that he was suffering from multiple dieses and thus the assessee was unable to recollect the source of such deposit. Identical plea was also raised before this Tribunal.

Considering the totality of facts, admittedly, the onus u/s 68/69A of the Act is upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of such deposit. It is noted that right from assessment stage and till the stage of this Tribunal, the assessee has not explained the source and the genuineness of the deposit. Thus, without going into much deliberation, I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 03/01/2018.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →