TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 241 - ITAT DELHI-C ] - Decided in favor of assessee - ITA No. 811/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2015 - SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by : Mrs. Rakhi Vimal, JCIT ORDER This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order dt. 11.12.2014 of Ld.CIT(A), Gurgaon for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The facts in brief are brought out by the Assessing Officer in his order 10.2.2014 vide para no. 2 3 which are extracted below for ready reference. 1. The assessee is a regular employee in Haryana Police Department as Assistant Sub Inspector. During the financial year 2010-11, for the assessment year 2010-11, he filed his return of income declaring total incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) erred in not deleting the unlawful addition of ₹ 8 lacs ignoring cited precedents which squarely supported assessee s case on similar facts. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 8 lacs made by AO on account of cash re-deposited from available cash duly substantitated on the basis of self presumed reasoning. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated herein above, either before at the time of hearing of this appeal. 7. Ld. Counsel of the Assessee, Shri Kapil Goel submitted that the assessee had withdrawn ₹ 8 lacs on 21.4.2010 from the Bank and re-deposited t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. She submitted that the case law relied by the assessee cannot be applied to the facts of the case, for the reasons that the assesee has not explained the purpose of withdrawal and the gap of 5 months between the withdrawal and the re-deposits. She pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 6 vide para no. 3.2 recorded that there is a particular pattern of re-depositing the amount of withdrawn as early as possible, after the date of such withdrawal by the assessee. She relied upon the orders of the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). 9. After hearing rival contentions and perusing the documents on record and the orders of the authorities below, I hold as follows. 10. The sole ground on which the additions has been made u/s. 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. 10. The aforesaid decision has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Nikhil Nanda (Supra). 11. Applying the proposition as laid down by the Tribunal to the facts of the case, I have to hold that no addition can be made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on the sole reason that there is a time gap of 5 months between the date of withdrawal from bank account of the cash in question and the redeposit of the same in the Bank Account, unless the AO demonstrates that the amount in question has been used by the assessee for any other purpose. In my view the addition is made on inferences and presumptions, which is bad in law. Hence, the addition in question is deleted and the Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
