Consideration of bank statements and credit card statements to make addition u/s 68/69C of the ITA Act

Last updated: 27 March 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case examines the use of bank and credit card statements when making additions to income under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee is appealing the CIT(A)'s orders for multiple assessment years, disputing the income assessed and challenging the jurisdiction and basis for reassessment.

Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of CIT(A) for the above assessment years. The grounds in these appeals are common and there is only change in the figures in respect of different assessment years, which are as follows:

Citation :
ITA Nos.399 to 401/Bang/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos.399 to 401/Bang/2020
Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2012-13

Sri Atul Dinesh Seth
No.10.2, Ibrahim Complex
S.P. Road
Bengaluru-560002
PAN NO : AFGPS6398E

Vs.

ITO Ward-2(3)(3)
Bengaluru
APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R.
Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R.

Date of Hearing : 04.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2021

O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of CIT(A) for the above assessment years. The grounds in these appeals are common and there is only change in the figures in respect of different assessment years, which are as follows:

1. The order of the learned CIT(A) in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, natural justice, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Appellant denies himself to be liable to a assessed to an income of Rs. 53,75,793/-under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Legal Grounds:

3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the mandatory conditions to assume jurisdiction under section 148 does not exist and consequently the assessment made is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer amounts to reason to suspect and do not amount to reason to believe on the facts and circumstances of the case.

To know more in details find thea ttachment file

FAQ :

The case primarily concerns Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, relating to unexplained cash credits and investments, respectively.

Bank statements and credit card statements were considered in this case.

The assessee is appealing against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, disputing the assessed income and the validity of the reassessment.

The assessee is questioning whether the mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction under Section 148 were met and arguing that the assessing officer's reasons amounted to suspicion rather than belief.