TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that:- Surplus cash is available with the assessee. The sum of ₹ 10,000/- can be said to be easily available from withdrawals of ₹ 2,85,000/- on 22.5.2006. Similarly, deposit of ₹ 50,000/- on 7.2.2007 can be easily explained from the withdrawals of ₹ 50,000/- on 15.1.2007. Therefore, in our opinion this addition is required to be deleted and accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the same. Addition on deposits in bank during the year as unexplained credits - Held that:- CIT(A) has not given detailed reasons for rejection of these two items. Once the confirmation was filed and if Assessing Officer had any doubt he could have asked for further information. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file for reexamination of these entries. The Assessing Officer should decide the issue in respect of these two entries after obtaining confirmation etc. in accordance with law. Addition on deposits in bank during the year as unexplained credits - assessee submitted that CIT(A) has already accepted the another gift of ₹ 5 lakhs from the sister then he should have accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arateadjudication. 4. Ground Nos. 2 6 : After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has deposited a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs which was received from Progressive Employees Welfare Society through two cheques of ₹ 6 lakhs and ₹ 4 lakhs. However, assessee could not furnish details regarding source of deposit with the society and, therefore, this sum was added to the income of the assessee. Even before CIT(A) no further evidence was filed, therefore, addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Similarly, deposit of ₹ 11,41,760/- is also out of refunds received from the earlier booking of flat. 5. Before us an application dated 6.3.2014 has been moved for admission of additional evidence. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to this application and submitted that allotment letters etc. from the society were not easily available because the same were old records and i.e. why the same could not be filed before CIT(A). He made a prayer that since documents go the route of the addition, therefore, the same may be admitted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that since documents w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the opinion that these documents go to the route of the matter and therefore in the interest of justice the same should be admitted as additional evidence. However, at the same time we do not find any force for admission of additional evidence in respect of documents N-5 i.e. gift deed because no particular reason has been given before us why this gift deed could not be obtained earlier. Therefore, we admit to the documents listed at SR. No.1 to 9 above except for the document No.5. 9. After considering the rival submissions and in view of the admission of additional documents stated above, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to reexamine the issue in the light of the additional evidence and then decide the same in accordance with law in respect of ground Nos. 2 6. 10. Ground Nos. 3 4: After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings it was noticed that assessee had deposited a sum of ₹ 10,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- in cash in the bank account at Punjab National Bank, Manimajra on 8.6.2006 and 7.2.2007 for which no explanation was given and, therefore, these two amounts were added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2007. Therefore, in our opinion this addition is required to be deleted and accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the same. 16. Ground Nos. 5 8 : After hearing both the parties we find that certain deposits were noted by the Assessing Officer for which no explanation was available. Two of these deposits pertain to the entries of ₹ 7,18,685/- on 19.5.2006 and ₹ 4,00,000/- on 9..3.2007. Before CIT(A) it was stated that these amounts have come form M/s Crown Cables Pvt Ltd for which a copy of the ledger account, bank statement was also filed but the same was remanded for verification alongwith certain other entries in the remand report. The Assessing Officer seems to have accepted deposits of ₹ 15,000/- and ₹ 3,80,000/-pertaining to Shri Ramesh Bansal and Shri Dharma Wires Pvt Ltd but there is no comment in respect of other entries. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of these two entries by simply stating that no confirmation was filed. 17. Before us, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that copy of the ledger account as well as bank statement was filed thereafter nothing was asked and the assessee was under the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
