TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been deposited out of the cash withdrawal of ₹ 4,90,000 on 27-5-2008 which had been withdrawn for hte medical treatment of the assesse's (aunt). AO has not accepted this explanation stating that the sum of ₹ 4,90,000 had been used for repayment of loan to Sri P. Nageswara Rao. It is seen from the entries in the bank account and the assessee 's explanation that the repayment has taken place subsequently, i.e., on 27-8-2008 and on 11-9-2008. Before this, the assessee had made a self withdrawal of ₹ 4,91,500 on 31-5- 2008. However, as per the assessee, this amount was eventually not utilised and was re-deposited on the dates mentioned above. AO has ignored this withdrawal of ₹ 4,91,500 in his order without giving any justification. Thus the assessee's explanation is reasonable and deserves acceptance. Against revenue. Second group of deposits - Held that:- The assessee submitted that he had borrowed a sum of ₹ 6 lakhs from Sri Rajeev Aurangabadkar for the purpose of development of land at Gandhamguda village. The borrowals are not disputed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee further submitted that he had paid advances to Sri M.V. Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,(APSCSC) Nalgonda to transport rice from the District head quarters to the godowns located at Mandal level. Subsequently, the assessee had entered into a sub-contract with M/s Sayana Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Chennai for executing the transport contract for a profit at the rate of 1% on the gross receipts. The Assessing Officer further noted that during the year under dispute the assessee had received gross receipts of Rs.1,38,95,919 from APSCSC Ltd., Nalgonda and had remitted Rs.1,37,56,960/- to M/s Sayana Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. The Assessing Officer further noted that though the assessee had deducted the tax at source on the remittance made to M/s Sayana Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, but the TDS amount was paid to government a/c only on 29-9-2005. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to show cause as to why the entire expenditure of Rs.1,37,56,960/- shall not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) as the assessee had not deposited the TDS before the expiry of time prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 200 of the Act. Though the assessee submitted its reply, the Assessing Officer rejected the same and completed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the TDS amount having been paid before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made in view of the amendment made to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2010. In support of such contention, the learned authorised representative for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:- i) Golden Stables Lifestyle Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 9ITA No.5145/Hyd/2009) ii) ITO vs. Taru Leading Edge (P) Ltd. (ITA No.3592/Hyd/2011) 6. The learned Departmental Representative submitted before us that the assessee though deducted the tax on 31-3- 2005 but has retained the money with him without depositing it into the government account within the prescribed period. It was submitted that the assessee had paid the amount to the government account much after only on 29-9-2005 which shows that the assessee is clearly an assessee in default as per section 201(1) of the IT Act. She contended that in such view of the matter, disallowance made was justified. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has deposited the TDS amount on 29-9-2005 as the Assessing Officer himself has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-12 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The department has raised the following effective ground before us:- "The ld CIT (A) ought not to have allowed relief to the assessee though the assessee has not substantiated the sources for the credits/deposits made into the bank account with corroborative documentary evidence." 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual filed its return of income on 25-11-2009 for the assessment year under dispute declaring a total income of Rs.2,61,250/- and agricultural income of Rs.72,630/-. Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny assessment. In course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on examining the assessee's bank account with ICICI Bank Ltd., Secunderabad Branch noticed cash deposits as well as other deposits made into the bank account. When the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the transaction-wise details of the deposits, the assessee submitted that out of the total cash deposit of Rs.21,34,500/- in his bank account, he had taken loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Sri P. Nageswara Rao for his personal purpose to help his aunt for her surgery. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the surgery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned above. The Assessing Officer has ignored this withdrawal of Rs.4,91,500 in his order without giving any justification. I find that the assessee's explanation is reasonable and deserves acceptance. 4.2. The second group of deposits consists of the following:- Date Amount 29-1-2009 Rs.1,00,000 18-3-2009 Rs.4,00,000 The assessee submitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs from Sri Rajeev Aurangabadkar for the purpose of development of land at Gandhamguda village. The borrowals are not disputed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee further submitted that he had paid advances to Sri M.V. Bhadra Rao (contractor for electrical works) and Sri G. Shanker (contracator for civil works). Since the project did not materialise, the assessee recovered the advances from the two persons and the deposits were made out of these amounts. The fact that payments were made to these two persons is borne out fo the bank details extracted in the assessment order. The subsequent deposits also tally exactly with the subsequent disputed deposits. The assessee 's explanation, therefore, is logical and reasonable. The Assessing Officer has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ev Aurangabadkar on 12-12-2008. Similarly, assessee's explanation with regard to total deposits of Rs.1,44,500/- on different dates as mentioned in para 4.3 of the CIT (A)'s order also cannot be rejected considering the nexus between the deposits and the income and also the fact that the assessee had shown income of Rs.2,61,250/- and agricultural income of Rs.72,630/- which has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer as the assessee has satisfactorily explained the source of such deposits. In aforesaid view of the matter, we confirm the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the department. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the department stands dismissed. ITA No. 241 of 2013 This appeal by the department is directed against the order dated 1-11-2012 of CIT (A)-VI, Hyderabad passed in appeal No.0484/11-12/CIT(A)-VI pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. x. The sole grievance of the revenue in the present appeal is with regard to the direction of the CIT (A) to the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
