9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve side is not disputed by the Assessing Officer or by the ld.CIT(A). In fact, the ld.CIT(A) had reproduced the summary of ITRs from A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18 - The grand total of all the net income for the 5 years roughly comes to Rs. 34 lakhs, which is more than the amount deposited by the assessee on 21/11/2016 i.e., 25 lacs. In our opinion, it is not expected for a person who is earning the income from rents to save and preserve the whole amount. In fact, some of the amounts must have been spent by the assessee either for herself or for the welfare of the family or on the education of the grandchildren etc. A balance is required to be drawn between the interests of the assessee as well as the interests of the revenue. Further durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the AO as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had sufficient source by way of rental income for the previous year under consideration as well as for the past two decades, for the deposits made in her bank account. 3. The IA. CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the reason that the same has been transferred to another person just alter three days of cash deposit and no reasons have been given. The IA. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amount was transferred by the appellant to her daugh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 6. Before me, ld. AR Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram reiterated the facts of case and he has drew my attention to page 4 of the paper book wherein it was mentioned as under : Source of cash Deposits: Date Amount (Rs.) 19/11/2016 45,000 25/11/2016 25,00,000 10/03/2017 20,000 Total 25,65,000 I derived rental income from property at 15-7-646/4, A, 6, 8, 9, A/1, Begum Bazar and 15-6-459, 458,455,463,459/A/I, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. These properties are my ancestral properties and I have been declaring rental income in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was old and belonged to a respectable family. The ld. AR further submitted that it is common for the old ladies to save cash for the remaining days to handle contingencies and health needs of the family. It was submitted that the assessee was a widow and having four living children and many grand-children, she at the relevant time had saved that money for spending on the occasions of marriages, birthday functions of grand-children and for taking care of the family s needs. The ld. AR further submitted that once the assessee was able to substantiate and explain the source of deposit with the help of income tax returns and the submissions therein, the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) are required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i also. Before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC also, the assessee explained that the amount deposited in her bank account were from the accumulated cash earned from rents received over many years. In fact, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had filed the return of income from A.Y.s 2013 to 14 to 2017-18, wherein she had explained that rent income for these years were ranging from 5.78 lakhs to 7.69 lakhs and the gross income for the said 5 assessment years ranging from Rs. 8.33 to 11.49 lakhs. However, the ld.CIT(A) did not find the explanation of the assessee convincing, hence, he had confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer at Page 7 of his order, which is to the following effect : ..I have considered the submissions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 19.11.2016. No other arguments in this regard has been taken by the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the submissions of the appellant are without any substance In view of1he above discussion the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s 69A stands confirmed. All the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed. 10. In my view, there is no cavil that the assessee was assessed to income tax for the last many years and the above side is not disputed by the Assessing Officer or by the ld.CIT(A). In fact, the ld.CIT(A) had reproduced the summary of ITRs from A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2017-18 on page 6 of his order. The grand total of all the net income for the 5 years roughly comes to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
