TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 69 is acceptable – the order of the CIT(A) modified – Decided partly in favour of assessee. Deletions made by CIT(A) - Amounts received through cheque/RTGS ₹ 18,88,050 – Cash loan received from M/s Latabai Gupta ₹ 5,00,000 - Deposits from withdrawal made earlier ₹ 1,00,000 - Held that:- As far as the amount of ₹ 18,88,050 is concerned, it is established on record that the amount was received from six different persons through cheque/RTGS - when the source of deposits to the tune of ₹ 18,88,050 stood explained there is no justification in treating it as unexplained investment of assessee - In so far as deposits of ₹ 5 lakhs claimed to have been made out of cash loan of ₹ 5 lakhs received from Smt. Latabai Gupta is concerned, AO not only initiated but also imposed penalty u/s 271D of the Act against assessee for having received loan in cash in violation of section 269SS of the Act – the action on the part of AO is suggestive of the fact that he has accepted the cash loan to be genuine - CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition to the extent of ₹ 5,00,000 - assessee has made cash withdrawal of ₹ 1,00,000 on 21/11/2009, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) found the deposits of ₹ 34,56,281 in the ICICI Bank account comprised of cash deposits of ₹ 15,65,000 and cheque deposits of ₹ 18,88,050. Further, ld. CIT(A) noticed that receipts of ₹ 18,88,050 through cheque/RTGS were from six persons, who also confirmed of having given the amount in question to assessee. He also found that the persons concerned are not only family members of assessee, but, they themselves are also income tax assessees. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) having found that the source of cheque deposits of ₹ 18,88,050 stood explained held that no addition can be made of the said amount. As far as cash deposits of ₹ 15,65,000 is concerned, assessee explained that said deposits were made out of opening cash balance of ₹ 4,67,737, loan of ₹ 5,00,000 received in cash from mother Stm. Latabai Gupta and the balance deposits were out of withdrawals made earlier. Ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions of assessee accepted loan received from mother amounting to ₹ 5,00,000 for the reason that not only Smt. Latabai Gupta has confirmed of having given the loan but the AO himself has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271D of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,000 on 21/11/2009 and 24/03/2010 respectively. Whereas, assessee has also made cash withdrawals of ₹ 1,00,000on 07/07/2009, ₹ 75,000 on 02/09/2009 and ₹ 2,00,000 on 22/09/2009. Therefore, when assessee was having sufficient cash available, the deposits made into the bank account from such cash available cannot be disbelieved. However, ld. AR submitted while working out the cash book, cash withdrawal of ₹ 1,85,000 from ICICI Bank was wrongly taken as on 26/01/2010 instead of 24/03/2010. It was submitted, on considering cash withdrawal of ₹ 1,85,000 on 24/03/2010 cash book shows peak negative cash balance of ₹ 1,45,863 on 26/01/2010 which alone can be considered for addition u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Ld. DR submitted, admittedly assessee originally did not disclose the credits in the ICICI bank account. Only after AO obtained information relating to the undisclosed bank account, assessee tried to explain the source of deposits by filing revised balance sheet etc. However, such attempt on the part of assessee only to explain the source of deposits with supporting evidence cannot be accepted. Hence, contention of assessee that addition of only ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the Act. 8. In the result, assessee s appeal is partly allowed. ITA No. 1101/H/2013 9. The department has preferred this appeal being aggrieved of the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the following additions: 1. Amounts received through cheque/RTGS ₹ 18,88,050 2. Cash loan received from M/s Latabai Gupta ₹ 5,00,000 3. Deposits from withdrawal made earlier ₹ 1,00,000 10. As discussed earlier in ITA No. 1021/H/13, during the assessment proceeding AO found that assessee has not accounted for the transactions appearing in the savings account with ICICI Bank. On verification of the account statement obtained from concerned bank, total deposits made during the year by the assessee was found to be ₹ 34,54,028. AO alleging that assessee has failed to explain the source of such deposits treated the entire deposit of ₹ 34,54,028 as unexplained investment of assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 11. During the appeal proceeding, ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and examining evidences on record found that an amount of ₹ 18,88,050 was received through cheque/RTGS from family members who also confirmed of having ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
