Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 532 - ITAT BANGALOREUnexplained income of the assessee - Unexplained deposits - contention of the ld. A.R. is that the assessee has withdrawn money from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Koramangala branch and the same has been deposited into same bank - only argument of the ld. D.R. is that assessee has not explained the reason for withdrawals of cash from the said account to hold that source of cash was not explained by the assessee - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, that cannot be reason for addition on this unexplained income of assessee. Once the assessee has explained the source of deposit as having given from the withdrawal made in the bank account, it was not open to the revenue to examine as to what assessee did with that money and cannot chose to disbelieve the plea of the assessee merely on the surmises that it would not be probable for the assessee to keep the money idle. Being so, the addition cannot be made on this count. This view of me is supported by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Narayana Shibaroor Shibaraya [2022 (11) TMI 1112 - ITAT BANGALORE] as held that the cash deposits in the bank account are preceded by withdrawal from the very same bank account and If the revenue wants to disbelieve the plea of the Assessee then it must show that the previous withdrawal of cash would not have been available with the Assessee on the date of deposit of cash in the bank account. The AO and CIT(A) have proceeded purely on assumption and surmises that cash withdrawn was not available to the Assessee on completely extraneous factors. Addition on deposits made in bank account - assessee has pleaded that assessee has given an amount to one Mr. Sri Maruti Reddy towards purchase advance of immovable property. Later, there was a defect in title and amount has been returned and it was used for redepositing the same to the assessee’s bank account - HELD THAT:- As incumbent upon the authorities to carry out necessary enquiry when assessee has made a statement that assessee has received the said amount from other party namely Shri Maruthi Reddy by way of refund of purchase advance given to him. In the present case, the lower authorities without carrying out any enquiry, made additions which is inappropriate. As held in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam [1980 (8) TMI 73 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] AO has not made any exercise to disbelieve the version of the assessee about the redepositing of amount out of the earlier withdrawal and also the ld. AO was required to disprove that the amount withdrawn earlier was not the amount redeposited. In the present case, when the assessee has taken a plea that it was the amount received from Mr. Maruthi Reddy, which was earlier advanced to him to purchase a property and that has not been verified by ld. AO and the addition has been made, which is not possible to do so without verifying the same. Thus force in the argument of the ld. A.R. and the addition was made on this count is deleted. Deposits during demonetization - HELD THAT:- As explained that the said amount has been deposited out of earlier savings. This is a nominal amount saved by assessee used to redeposit to bank account on demonetization. Considering the smallness of amount, no reason to sustain the addition. The addition is deleted. Deposits from receipts from parents - as per assessee the said amount was received from past savings given by assessee’s parents and that said amount has been kept by assessee’s parent and on demonetization the same amount has been given to the assessee and deposited to assessee’s bank account - HELD THAT:- As discussed earlier, without bringing any material against the assessee, addition cannot be made. Accordingly, the addition is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|