Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 289 - ITAT DELHIAddition u/s 69 and 68 - Held that:- CIT(A) has taken into cognizance all the documentary evidence. The absence of the same during the assessment proceeding which prevented by sufficient cause from filing this documentary evidence before the A.O. was also rightly considered by the CIT(A). Thus additional evidence filed by the assessee was rightly admitted by the CIT(A). The asssessee’s bank accounts and copies of mutual fund redemption statements placed in the paper book, various investments made in mutual funds during the year under consideration are out of either redemption of the old investments in mutual funds or out of auto sweep FDR maturity. Therefore, these investments are genuine and was fully explained by the assessee. In support of the loan of ₹ 3,50,000/- from CITI Bank, the assessee filed a copy of the sanctioned letter from the CITI Bank. With regard to loan amount of ₹ 75,000/- given by the assessee and received back on 14/2/2006(Rs. 25,000/-) and on 17/3/2006 (Rs. 50,000/-) a confirmation from Sh. S. Madhusudan was filed to this effect giving his complete address, PAN and the ward where he assessed to tax. Both these amounts were received in the HSBC account of the assessee through cheques. While explaining the source of these cash deposits the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that these cash deposits had been made out of cash in hand available as on 1/4/2005 amounting to ₹ 2,50,000/-. This explanation of the assessee was rightly not accepted by the CIT(A) because the assessee did not maintain any book of account. No cash flow statement was available on record to show that the assessee actually had cash in hand of ₹ 2,50,000/- as on 1/4/2005. Therefore, amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- deposited in cash on different dates in ICICI Bank as mentioned above was rightly added to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credits in the assessee’s bank accounts was restricted to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Thus, the CIT(A) has correctly arrived at the finding after verifying all the documents. There is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).
|