×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
These three appeals of the assessee are directed against the composite order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 4-02-2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2016-17 respectively. Since the common issues are raised in these three appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these three appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this composite order.
2.1 For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee has raised following grounds:-
‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 45,997/-u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by treating the deposit in the HSBC Bank account, Hong Kong as unexplained cash credit without giving any finding on this ground.
2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 45,107/- u/s 69C of I.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained expenditure incurred
through credit card of Bank of America by not accepting the contention of assessee that payment of this card was made byhis uncle Shri Sailesh Lakhi who is residing in USA.’’
3.1 Ground No. 1 is regarding addition of Rs. 45,997/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act on account of deposit made in HSBC Bank, Hong Kong as an unexplained cash credit/ unexplained investment.
3.2 The assessee is a partner in M/s. Lakhi Gems and also handles the marketing activities of M/s. Bihari Lal Holaram, partnership firm. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO noted that the assessee is maintaining a bank account in HSBC Bank, Hong Kong which is not disclosed by the assessee . In response, the assessee has explained that he is looking after the marketing activities of M/s. Bihari Lal Holaram, partnership firm and M/s. Lakhi Gems. In connection with business of these two firms, the assessee used to visit outside India and, therefore, opened an account in Hong Kong to make small payments like train ticket, taxi charges etc. The assessee further explained that this account was opened on behalf of these firms and a sum of USD 700 was deposited. The assessee explained that these two firms in the petition filed before the ld. Settlement Commission have offered this deposit in bank account to tax as an undisclosed income The AO though accepted the fact that these firms have offered this amount in their petition to the ld. Settlement Commission yet no order or decision of ld. Settlement Commission was made till the passing of assessment order. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of the said amount of Rs. 45,997/- on account unaccounted cash in the hands of the assessee.
3.3 The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed.
3.4 Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that this account was opened in the name of the assessee on behalf of these two firms i.e. M/s. Bihari Lal Holaram, partnership firm and M/s. Lakhi Gems. Therefore, the amount of USD 700 was deposited on behalf of those firms. The ld.AR of the assessee also referred to the settlement petition u/s 245C of the Act on 31-10-2017 as well as the order of the ld. Settlement Commission dated 22-04-2019 and submitted that the undisclosed income offered by these firms including this amount has been accepted by the ld. Settlement Commission which would amount to double taxation on the same income. Hence, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that once the said amount belonged to the partnership firms and already offered to tax by the firms then the same cannot be added in the hands of the assessee.
3.5 On the other hand the ld. DR submitted that the order of the ld. Settlement Commi sion is prior to the impugned order of the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, until and unless it was settled by order of the ld. Settlement Commission, the amount deposited in the bank account in the name of the assessee was rightly added in the hands of the assessee.
3.6 We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the amount of USD 700