Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (3) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng of the authorities below. In our considered view, when the assessee has demonstrated that he had withdrawn cash from the bank and there is no finding by the authorities below that this cash available with the assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose, in that event, it is not open to the authority to make the addition on the basis that the assessee failed to explain the source of deposits. Moreover, the authorities below have not disputed the fact that the assessee had withdrawn an amount of ₹ 9,10,000 before the deposits made on various dates during the financial year 2007-08. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition - Decided in favour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessing Officer that the deposits were out of the withdrawals from the same account. The explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the case was withdrawn in the first week of July-2006, whereas the deposits were in the month of June-2007. Against the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who after considering the submissions, reduced the addition to the extent of ₹ 10,44,800. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition. He submitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... explanation as furnished by the assessee caused doubt as is evident from the fact that the cash was withdrawn on various dates (i.e., July 1, 2006, July 6, 2006 and June 26, 2007) during the years 2006 and 2007. However, the cash was deposited in the years 2007 and 2008. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had deposited the cash of ₹ 11,27,800 starting from June 7, 2007 to February 13, 2008. The cash withdrawn from the bank was of ₹ 4,20,000 on July 1, 2006, ₹ 4,90,000 on July 6, 2006, S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt was kept as cash in hand. The authorities have doubted about the explanation furnished by the assessee. The authorities below have doubted the source of the cash deposits, however, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that he had withdrawn the amount from his bank account and there is no finding by the authorities below that the cash withdrawn by the assessee was utilised for any other purpose. In the absence of such finding, addition is not justified. We find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the assessee that there is no dispute that the amount which was withdrawn by the assessee on various dates during the year 2006 was available with him for making deposits. In the absence of finding that the amount whic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates