Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The AO considered the reply of the assessee and noted at para-4.1 that there were 17 transactions for total of Rs.36,17,00,112/- in the period 10.11.2016 to 05.12.2016. The assessee received the funds through RTGS/cheque immediately after cash deposits were made in the bank account of M/s Nirav & Co. The AO remarked that assessee had only relied upon the fact that the account of M/s Nirav & Co was opened two years before the demonization. The assessee has not rebutted the sworn statement of Shri Himanshu R. Shah u/s 131 of the Act wherein he admitted that he was actually controlling the said bank account of M/s Nirav & Co and was using it as per the requirement. In fact, assessee is the only beneficiary of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Shri Nirav R. Shah was a small time salaried employee who had no means and capacity to effect such huge ITA Nos.197 & 224/SRT/2022 Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi transactions. He was only a facilitator but the actual control of the bank account was exercised by Shri Hinanshu R. Shah. When Shri Nirav R. Shah realized the mistake, he filed a police complaint which shows that he was not the actual person who had undertaken the transactions. The AO further mentioned that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act issued to M/s Nirav & Co could not be served at the two addresses found from the ITD database. The invoices prepared by assessee giving address of M/s Nirav & CO as "M/s Nirav & Co. Nanpura, Surat" is a vague address. The AO at para-4.7 has summarized the findings which are as follows: (i) all cash transaction were during demonetization period, (ii) there are no substantial transactions before and after demonetization period and (iii) the only account to which funds were transferred is that of the assessee. In view of the above, the assessee was held to be beneficiary owner of the cash of Rs.36,17,00,000/- which was added u/s 69 of the Act to the total income of assessee.