9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the matter Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO and in not deleting the impugned addition made by Ld. AO and the assessment order is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds and more so as the same has been passed by recording incorrect facts and finding and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 4. Ground nos.1 & 2 are against sustaining the addition of Rs.17,70,400/- on account of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. While pleading on these grounds, the learned AR submitted that there were cash deposits of Rs.27,70,400/- in the two bank accounts of the assessee, Rs.13,70,400/- in assessee's account held with HDFC Bank and R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn and the reasons for withdrawal and re deposited in piecemeal is also not provided. On this issue, the learned AR submitted that the balance sheet was filed with the return of income in respect of in respect of proprietary business of the assessee. However, personal balance sheet of the assessee showing availability of cash was filed subsequently. This balance sheet was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee was planning to purchase a land at Housing Complex, G. T .Road, Sonepat, the amounts were withdrawn for the said purpose for advance to Shri Anil Kumar and Shri Satbir and since the deal could not be materialized with them, the assessee continued to possess the cash. Thereafter also, the assessee planned to acquire land at Mehrauli with his father and brother but unluckily, again the deal could not be materialized due to some departmental hurdles and money remained unutilized which the assessee ultimately decided to redeposit with his bank account with Bank of Baroda during the period from 23.3.2006 to 30.3.2006 to return the impugned loan of Rs.10,00,000/ taken from his father. The Assessing Officer's observation that the assessee was shown withdrawals o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of funds is contradictory, firstly it was meant for purchase of agricultural land in Sonepat and subsequently at Mehrauli and the assessee has failed to prove the identity of these persons with whom these negotiations were taken. Ld. AR submitted that the redeposits in bank account have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A). These deposits were from the cash balance available with the assessee in his books and only on account of that there was time tap between withdrawal and deposits, the same cannot be taken as unexplained deposits. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition. The withdrawals of smaller amounts through ATM from assessee's account will not make any difference so far as it is not established that the assessee has invested the impugned money anywhere else and derived any benefit therefrom. The CIT (A) is also not justified by holding that the assessee is in possession of Rs.19,00,000 was not dealing in land for which no profit has been disclosed as such no credit for cash withdrawal is given. For this, Ld. AR submitted that there was no question of declaring any profit as it does not arise since no transaction of purchase/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposited in the bank accounts and finally, depositing the huge amount in the last week of the financial year itself show that it is a cooked up story and self serving recitals. Since no evidence filed in respect of the negotiations, the assessee's explanation that cash balance was available in his books is completely un sustainable and without any supporting evidence. Ld. DR pleaded that the facts of assessee's case are at variance to the facts of cases relied upon. In assessee's case, the stated reason of cash withdrawal itself is not established. Assessee failed to produce the persons with whom the deal was made and cancelled. Hence, ratio does not apply to assessee's case. Ld. DR pleaded to sustain the order of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the sides in detail. The assessee has claimed that there was planning to purchase the land jointly with his father Shri Subhash Chand Jain for group housing complex at G.T. Road, Sonepat, Haryana. The land was stated to be situated in the Village Kamaas Pur, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. Assessee had not filed any documentary evidence in this regard. Assessee's claim that the amount was withdrawn for initial payments to land owners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
