Case Number: ITA 1116/DEL/2020
Appellant: Ashvin Prakash Kumar, New Delhi
Respondent: DCIT Circle-70(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Result: 2006-07
Case Filed On: 2020-03-19
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-12-07
Pronounced On: 2022-12-07
This case revolves around the addition of undisclosed income in the form of deposits in foreign bank accounts held by Ashvin Prakash Kumar. The assessment pertains to the assessment year 2006-07, with the primary issue being the legitimacy and disclosure of bank accounts in HSBC Geneva and HSBC London.
The appellant, Ashvin Prakash Kumar, filed his return of income on 31.07.2006 declaring an income of Rs.41,14,692/-. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information received from the Investigation Wing regarding an undisclosed bank account in HSBC Geneva with a balance of USD 4,849 as of March 2006. Additionally, there were credit entries in an HSBC London account amounting to GBP 1,000 and GBP 3,000.
The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 148 on 01.10.2013, prompting the appellant to provide details of the foreign bank accounts. Despite consistent denials by the appellant regarding the ownership and existence of these accounts, the AO proceeded to add Rs.2,15,925/- (equivalent of USD 4,849) from HSBC Geneva and Rs.3,24,310/- (equivalent of GBP 1,000 and GBP 3,000) from HSBC London as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO’s decision, stating that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) emphasized that section 68 of the Act casts an onus on the assessee to substantiate the source and nature of the deposits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. The key points discussed were:
The appellant denied any knowledge or ownership of the HSBC Geneva account and claimed that the entries in the HSBC London account were related to transactions with M/s Alipur Films Ltd. However, no substantial evidence or documentation was provided to support these claims.
The Departmental Representative argued that the presence of the appellant’s name and the names of his parents in the HSBC Geneva account statement indicated a direct connection. The failure to provide concrete evidence to refute the existence and ownership of the account justified the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and concluded:
The ITAT upheld the additions made by the AO, confirming that the amounts in the HSBC Geneva and HSBC London accounts were to be treated as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant’s arguments and dismissed the appeal.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07/12/2022 by Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member.
The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform