TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A), besides the assessee may be aged but remained active in his business affairs. Consequently we see no justification in addition of ₹ 6 lacs more so when the facts about cash books, cash flow and receipt of cheque of ₹ 13 lacs from M/s. S.G. Fiscal have not been controverted. In view thereof, we are unable to uphold the addition of ₹ 6.00 lacs which is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Low house hold withdrawals - Held that:- The assessee is an active person, earning from two partnership firms. It has been contended that his two sons have borne the house hold expenses and have sufficient withdrawals. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate that quantum of withdrawals by two sons and statement to the fact that their father did not contribute any house hold expenses. Beside the size of their family and extent of house hold withdrawals have no evidence on record to hold that assessee's version is correct. Thus in these facts and circumstances of the case assessee’s explanation is not corroborated by any iota of evidence. In view thereof, we hold that an addition of ₹ 1.00 lac on account of house hold withdrawals has rightly been made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht forward cash from earlier years lying with him. In support of this copy of cash book for the current year and preceding year were filed to show the cash flow. Ld. AO was not convinced with assessee's reply in behalf of opening cash, besides assessee had not shown any withdrawal for house hold expenses. Consequently, following additions were made. The perusal of cash flow statement submitted by the assessee in the preceding year also reflects huge inflow and outflow. However, during the year, no such transactions have been reflected. Moreover, the assessee has not produced the books of accounts for the relevant periods and only extracts of cash books and bank books were filed. There was no specific reason with the assessee to hold such use cash in hand stated in the cash flow statement. The practice shown by the assessee is very abnormal. Cash in hand also form part of wealth chargeable to tax as per Wealth Tax Act, 1957 but no return of wealth declaring such cash in hand charged to wealth tax has been filed. Moreover, it is also found that no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for house hold withdrawals despite the fact that he was the eldest member of his f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that what is improbable has happened. When cash withdrawals were made for the purpose of investment in real estate, it is presumed that the same is used for that purpose and the same is not available with the appellant for payment after 10 months. If the time gap between withdrawal and deposit is of a few days, one can still assume that deposits are from withdrawals. For such a wide gap of tie, onus is on the appellant to explain the entire conduct alongwith the necessary evidences. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are in respect of cases where regular books of accounts are kept and time gap is not substantial. Therefore, these decisions do not help the appellant. If appellant makes the claim that he kept the cash withdrawal from the bank for 10 months, onus to establish this claim is on the appellant. This onus can be discharged by giving relevant details of land deals for which cash was withdrawn but not utilized. Further for keeping such huge cash also required details of ongoing deals for which instant cash was needed. Appellant submitted no details and simply claimed that deposit with the firm was out of cash withdrawals from the bank 10 months earlier. Such claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purely on presumption, surmises and conjectures cannot override the evidences produced by the assessee in this behalf. Reliance is placed on following case laws:- (i) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 86 ITR 349 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 (Del.) (iii) Anand Prakash Soni vs. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 97 (Jodhpur.) (iv) CIT Vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC) 3.4 Apropos house hold withdrawals, it is contended that two sons were meeting all the household expenses and they were having sufficient withdrawals. There was no necessity for assessee in this behalf. The assessee was not required to contribute any share in house hold expenses. Therefore no withdrawals were shown, the addition is not justified. 3.5 The ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Apropos addition of ₹ 6.00 lacs, the same has been made mainly relying on the fact that the assessee was an old person and living alone and there was a time gap of 10 months for keeping the cash at home which was not possible on preponderance of probabilities. It may be mentioned that asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
