TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i ORDER Per Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, J. M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order of the CIT(A)-III, Hyderabad dated 14th November, 2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual derives income from salary, short term capital gain u/s. 111A and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 12.03.2010 admitting total income of Rs.2,49,500/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, by making the following additions : i) Short term capital gain u/s.111 Rs.32,947/- ii) Unexplained cash deposits Rs.53,82,884/- and determining the total income at Rs.56,32,380/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and stated that at the beginning of the year there was an opening balance of Rs.10,24,736/- which had also been considered by the A.O. Further it was submitted that if the withdrawals and deposits are seen together, the sources would be fully explained. The CIT(A) also perused carefully the bank account and he found that there is some substance in the argument of the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that there is opening balance as stated by the assessee. Further, there are some receipts in cheque and some cash withdrawals as well as some cash deposits which are fairly close by in terms of dates. The CIT(A) further observed regarding other deposits of cash, the dates of withdrawals and deposits are many weeks part and credit cannot be given f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel for the assessee also contended that amounts have been kept in for certain purposes and hence, the cash in hand is presumed to be re- deposited in bank account. For this proposition, he relied on the decisions of Mehta Parikh Co. vs. CIT, Bombay (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and in the case of Lal Chand Bhagath Ambika Ram vs. CIT, Bihar Orissa 37 ITR 288 (SC). 8. The learned D.R. on the other hand submitted that the small withdrawals cannot explain the huge deposit. The learned D.R. further submitted the written submissions which is as follows : "That the learned CIT(A) after duly considering the explanations given by the assessee, confirmed a portion of the addition on account of sec.69A made by the A.O. He has given a cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced, the same must pass the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances if they do not, then addition justified. In support of this contention, the learned D.R. relied upon in case of Smt Phoolwati Devi 314 ITR (AT) 1 (Del.) 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the contention of the asessee's counsel is that the cash deposited into the bank account is represents the previous withdrawals. However, the Departmental Representative countered the arguments of the assessee's counsel by stating that there is no nexus between the earlier withdrawal from the bank account and deposited the same into the account. Being so, credit should not be given. In our opinion, when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
