Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. That Ld CIT 'A' erred in confirming the action of AO refusing to accept the contention of Appellant that aforesaid return of income is filed by someone else using his KYC documents and receipt and deposit of bank accounts stated therein does not belong to him.

5. That appellant reserves his right to add or amend grounds of appeal."

Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others

4. The counsel briefly narrated the fact that assessee is an individual who has filed his return of income u/s 139. The AO has reopened the case of the assessee u/s 147 by issuing the notice u/s 148 within the stipulated time by recording the reason that the income declared by the assessee at Rs. 9,36,587/- did not commensurate with the total credits/deposits in the bank account. The Ld. AR submitted that the AO passed a high pitch assessment order without making verification of the facts of the case that to whom these deposits belong, who has opened bank account in the name of the assessee and without verifying the status of the Mr. Bharat Bomb who had filed the return of income by using the KYC of the assessee and admitted these transaction being done by him in the statement on oath before CBI. The AR stated that though the AO issued notice but in some cases the notice were not served but many notice were not served. Thus, some of the cases due compliances were made, during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. AO without carrying out any examination and verification from the bank, about opening of account, deposit slip and the veracity of the alleged deposit resorted to made addition of entire deposit u/s 69A with profit @ 8% on said deposits.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by refusing the contentions of the appellant that the aforesaid return of income was filed by Shri Bharat Bomb, CA and his associates by using the appellants KYC documents and that the receipts in deposits of bank account stated therein does not belong to the appellant assessee. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that on the identical facts for the earlier and subsequent assessment years also the return of income were filed on behalf of the appellant by misusing his KYC documents by Shri Bharat Bomb, CA wherein addition made by the Department on the basis of these returns were deleted by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The particulars of the appeals decided by ITAT Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in some of the present and connected assessees are listed here under:

7. The Counsel for the assessee has further argued that the appellants return for assessment year 2015-16 was also picked up for scrutiny. During the course of hearing, the appellant had submitted to the AO that he has not filed the return of income as income was below taxable limits as he was salaried and his return was filed by misusing his KYC by Shri Bharat Bomb, CA after obtaining his digital signatures for use of his own benefits. The Ld. AR has further submitted that appellant assessee also appeared u/s 131 and submitted that this fake return was submitted by Bharat Bomb and he was not aware of any of the returns filed by him. The AR has further submitted that appellant assessee has submitted before the ITAT with respect to assessment year 2011-12 and 2015-16,that all the additions made by AO in the case of the assessee, for the earlier years and subsequent years, considering the fraudulent return filed and bank transaction done by Shir Bharat Bomb, CA by misusing KYC of the assessee and that it was Bharat Bomb who has misused Asst. Years : 2012-13 & Others the ID proof of the appellant, to open various bank accounts, various trading concerns and obtain loan and brought properties in his name. The Ld. AR has pleaded that the submissions made in the present appeal on each ground of appeal may be considered common submissions to all the captioned appeals. In support the appellant has filed the following documents:

14. Having given thoughtful consideration to the facts and decisions of Coordinate Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur delivered in the appellant's own case and other connected case on identical facts. It is apparent clear that admittedly the issues raised by the assesees are covered issues on identical facts regarding unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts u/s 69A of the Act and trading addition at the rate of 8% on such deposit. It is noted that as an individual who was engaged in service and having income below taxable limits, and that he has not been filing return of income being not having taxable income, for have source of income for such alleged huge deposit in bank a/c's. We find that it was Mr. Bharat Bomb, Chartered Accountant (AC) who has opened bank account and filed return of income by using KYC of the assessee and many other persons as the appellant assessees have been drawing salary at the establishment of CA Bharat Bomb who has been having all the particulars of these assessees such as PAN No., bank account no., KYC no., and digital signatures, etc. which has been used by Mr. Bharat Bomb for his own benefits.