Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. D. Srinivasan Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

2016 (3) TMI 74 - ITAT CHENNAI

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 on the basis of peak credit method. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mbatore 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 income on 15.09.2011 declaring his income .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rse 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 through the submissions made by the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 verifiable being no verifiable details have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt 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 comes to ₹ 35,12,500/-. 10. Regardi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt 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 made by the appellant from Dhanalakshmi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 file any details of identity of Shri N.P. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ade 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. The explanation cannot be accepted and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 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 21.08.2010 and ₹ 44,000/- was withdra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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