Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 582 - ITAT JAIPUR

2015 (10) TMI 582 - ITAT JAIPUR - [2015] 42 ITR (Trib) 511 (ITAT [Jai]) - Unaccounted deposits - unexplained income - main reason on which the addition has been sustained is to the effect that the assessee could not give proper explanation as to how an amount of ₹ 6.00 lacs was lying at home more so assessee being an old aged person, it did not meet the preponderance of probabilities - Held that:- has been made mainly relying on the fact that the assessee was an old person and living alone .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hand could not be retained by the assessee for 10 months. There is no factual basis in the presumption drawn by the AO and the ld. CIT(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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 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 lower authorities which is upheld. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 33/JP/2014 - Dated:- 29-5-2015 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM For T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- on account of the deposit made on 4-4-207 with the firm M/s. Jai Hanumant, as unexplained income. The addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, the same kindly be deleted. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- on account of alleged low .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

w and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee did not press Ground No. 1, hence, the same is dismissed being not pressed. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that assessee during the course of relevant period was partner in M/s. Jai Hanumant and M/s. Globe Transport Corporation. The assessee filed his return of income in Form No. 3. declaring his income from partnership firm, Short term capital gain and interest. It was found that the assessee h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nses. 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. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n that the funds withdrawn on 14-06-2006 were available with the assessee to make deposits in the current year after a elapse of almost 10 months. Hence, the source of deposits of ₹ 6,00,000/- made on 4- 4-2007 with his firm M/s. Jai Hanumant stands unexplained and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. This results in an addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee on substantive basis. The above proposition also derived support from the decision of H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cash by the appellant in partnership firm Jai Hanuman. Appellant submitted that source of cash was from his earlier withdrawals and past savings. However, Assessing Officer found that last withdrawal from the bank was in June 2006 whereas cash introduced in the partnership firm in April 2007. There is a gap of 10 months which is quite unlikely. Assessing Officer also mentoned that appellant was nly having ntrest and other income and not doing any busnes and therefore, no regular books of account .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he cash withdrawals from the bank in June 2006 was not at all available with the appellant in April 2007 for introducing in partnership firm. The claim of the appellant is beyond any preponderance of probability. In such situation, onus is on the appellant to prove 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 aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 without details and necessary eviden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmitted that his sons were meeting all his expenses and they were having sufficient withdrawals to meet these expenses. However, it is difficult to believe that a person who is active and partner in two firms will not require any money for his personal expenses apart from house hold expenses which might have been met by his family members. There are many personal expenses which are required to be incurred by a person who is earning. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that appellant did not sp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

son, it did not meet the preponderance of probabilities. The assessee maintained its accounts on computer and production of cash books for two years along with monthly cash flow statement has not been disputed. Similarly, the withdrawal of cash of ₹ 13.00 lacs on 14-06-2006 from his saving bank a/c no. 75110036311 of Standard Chartered Bank which was received from S.G. Fiscal has also not been disputed except the alleged time gap of 10 months holding of cash in hand at home, assessee being .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t may be mentioned that assessee while explaining the low house hold withdrawals assessee had already submitted before the lower authorities that he was living in a joint family of two sons. With these facts on record, there was no reason for the lower authorities to hold that the assessee was living alone which could be the reason for any adverse inference that cash in hand could not be retained by the assessee for 10 months. There is no factual basis in the presumption drawn by the AO and the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version