TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. Moreover, the appellant has also submitted details from which it can be observed that the appellant had substantial withdrawing for its household expenses. - Decided in favour of assesse. Accepting of additional evidence - Held that:- CIT(A) has deleted the addition of made by the AO by following the ITAT orders in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla and Moongipa Investment Ltd. vs. ITO [supra]. Hence, the question of providing an opportunity to rebut as per the provision of Rule 46A is concerned, does not arise and as such is dismissed - Decided in favour of assesse. - I.T.A.No.3644/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - Shri H.S. Sidhu And Shri T.S. Kapoor JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. P. DAM. Kanunjna, Sr. DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order has deleted the additions in dispute by respectfully following the orders of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla, 121 TTJ (Del) 366 and Moongipa Investment Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 2605/Del/2007, hence, he requested the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. In support of his contention he also filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 33 having the copies of the written submissions dated 26.2.13 and 14.3.2013 filed before the CIT(A); ledger account of personal drawings; summary of drawings; details of cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank; copies of bank accounts; written submissions dated NIL filed before the CIT(A) and letter dated 23.8.2011 filed before the AO. 5. First we deal Ground no. 1 relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order is that while the appellant had made major withdrawals in the month of January, 2008, the deposits were made in the month of June, 2008 and, upto March, 2008 and no satisfactory reason could be given by the appellant as to why such huge amount were kept at home. In view of the above, the AO has held that the cash deposits were unexplained. Perusal of the submissions of the appellant show that the appellant had made cash withdrawals of ₹ 51,00,000I- on 01.02.2008 and of ₹ 20,00,000/- of 15.03.2008. It is also observed that against, the above withdrawals deposits were made in the bank accounts as under:- 1. 24.06.2008 39,98,800/- 2. 26.06.2008 1,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in cash since it was interested in purchasing immovable properties, but since the deals did not materialize therefore, the amount was re-deposited in his bank accounts by way of cash. Perusal of the details filed by the appellant show that the appellant had substantial withdrawals, besides the above mentioned withdrawals of ₹ 94,70,000/-, which were utilized for household expenses. The only contention of the AO is that there was no justification for keeping the cash at home and there was a time gap between the withdrawals and deposits does not hold good in view of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TT] (Del) 366whrein it has been held as under: We have heard the rival subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been used anywhere else by the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has also submitted details from which it can be observed that the appellant had substantial withdrawing for its household expenses. The Hon'ble IT A T Delhi in the case of Moongipa Investment Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA no. 260SIDe1l2007 after placing reliance on the decision in the case of Baldev Raj Charla has held that addition cannot be made or sustained on the basis that there was time gap between cash withdrawal from bank account and cash deposits in bank account. In view of the findings above that the appellant had substantial cash withdrawals from which the cash deposits had been made in the bank account and also in view of the fact that the AO has not brought an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
