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

2016 (3) TMI 74 - ITAT CHENNAI

2016 (3) TMI 74 - ITAT CHENNAI - TMI - Unexplained cash deposit under section 68 - Held that:- The assessee is in the business of running a departmental store in the name of the private limited company promoted by him. It is apparent from the facts of the case that assessee has been continuously depositing cash in his bank account and withdrawing the same. In such circumstances when these deposits are not reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee it would be appropriate to make addition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-I, Coimbatore dated 06.03.2015 in ITA No.152/14-15 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The only issue raised in the appeal by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of rsRs. 35,12,500/- towards unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the Managing Director of M/s. Sree Annapoorna Departmental Stores Pvt. Ltd., filed his return of inc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in appeal before us. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by learned Assessing Officer that assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to ₹ 41,00,000/- in his HDFC bank account. Therefore the learned Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 41,00,000/- invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A|) has given partial relief to the assessee by confirming the addition of ₹ 35,12,500/- by observing as follows:- 8. I have gone 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

41 Lakhs without giving any details. As seen from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has considered the HDFC Bank cash deposits made on 17.09.2010, 25.10.2010, 31.07.2010, 31.05.2010 and 18.09.2010. These amounts total to RS.27 Lakhs. However, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer stated that "the assessee's reply is not satisfactory being without any proof and also the time gap between the cash withdrawal and the cash redeposited is also of long gap. So it is not veri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng Officer only concluded that the amount of ₹ 41 Lakhs was without any details. 9. On going through the bank account details of HDFC and Dhanalakshmi Bank produced by the Authorized Representative, it could be seen that there were cash deposits in HDFC Bank on 01.02.2011 amounting to ₹ 5 Lakhs, on 04.02.2011 amounting to ₹ 1,95,000/-. Similarly, on 26.10.2010, there was a cash deposit of ₹ 1,17,500/- in Dhanalakshmi Bank. The total of cash deposits made by the assesse co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

milaban.D. During the course of appellant proceedings, the Authorized Representative was pointed out about the money being paid to Shri Tamiiaban.D. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that this was the cash withdrawal made by the assessee but cheque was given to Shri Tamilaban. D. However, no evidence to the extent that Shri Tamilaban. D is an employee working with Shri D. Srinivasan could be filed. Due to lack of any evidence, it could not be concluded that the cash withdrawal was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on. Hence this cash deposit is also to be treated as unexplained cash deposit. 12. On 31.07.2010 there was a cash deposit of ₹ 5 Lakhs in HDFC Bank. The Authorized Representative submitted that drawings were made on 05.07.2010 and ₹ 5 Lakhs from HDFC Bank, and the same was explained as the source for cash deposit. However from the Bank Account, it was in the name of Shri N.P. Mani, cheque' paid for a sum of ₹ 5 Lakhs. The appellant's Authorized Representative did not fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it cannot be accepted that withdrawal made by Smt. S. Jayanthi on 06.07.2009 can be sourced for cash deposit made on 31.05.2010. Hence, this is confirmed as unexplained cash deposit. On 18.09.2010, there was a cash deposit of ₹ 1 Lakh made was a cash withdrawal from Dhanalakshmi Bank on 24.08.2010. However, the details furnished with Dhanalakshmi Bank show that an amount of ₹ 1 Lakh was paid to Shri Austin Fernandez and it cannot be concluded as cash withdrawal made by the assessee. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orized Representative submitted that ₹ 1,50,000/- advance paid for land purchase during 14.05.2008 received back and deposited along with ₹ 45,000/- received from Smt. S. Jayanthi. However, no evidence could be produced for the same. This amount is confirmed as unexplained cash deposit. 15. On 26.10.2010 there was a cash deposit of ₹ 1,17,500/- made with Dhanalakshmi Bank. The Authorized Representative submitted that ₹ 75,000/- was withdrawn from Dhanalakshmi Bank on 21.0 .....

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