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 →

SUDHIRBHAI PRAVINKANT THAKER Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER

2016 (3) TMI 171 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Undisclosed cash deposited to the bank - income from undisclosed sources - Held that:- We find merit in the contention of assessee that there is no dispute that the amount which was withdrawn by the assessee on various dates during the year 2006 was available with him for making deposits. In the absence of finding that the amount which was previously withdrawn by the assessee had been utilised for any other purpose merely on the basis of conjecture that the amount might have been utilised for an .....

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 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 Moreover, the authorities below have not disputed the fact that the assessee had withdrawn an amount of ₹ 9,10,000 before the deposits made on various dates during the financial year 2007-08.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 of assessee - I. T. A. No. 788 /Ahd/ 2012 (assessment year 2008-09). - Dated:- 21-9-2015 - PRAMOD KUMAR (Accountant Member) and KUL BH .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 10,44,800 being amount of cash deposited to the bank considering the same as income from undisclosed sources which is requested to be quashed. Your appellant prays for leave to add, to alter and/or to amend the above ground before the final hearing of the appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment under sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cer on the ground that the case was withdrawn in the first week of July-2006, whereas the deposits were in the month of June-2007.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 asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ive balance out of which the cash has been deposited but the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact. He submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in following the ratio laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC). He submitted that in the present case, there are direct evidences demonstrating that the assessee was having cash balance. He submitted that no law prohibits the assessee for keeping the cash .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntal representative supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the 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 we .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as deposited on June 7, 2007 of ₹ 2 lakhs, on June 8, 2007 of ₹ 2 lakhs, on June 11, 2007 of ₹ 1,50,000, on June 12, 2007 of ₹ 2 lakhs, on June 13, 2007 of ₹ 2,25,000. The total deposits till June 13, 2007 was of ₹ 9,75,000 and the amount withdrawn till July 6, 2006 was of ₹ 9,10,000 (Rs. 4,20,000 + 4,90,000). Rest of the deposits of the total addition were made on June 18, 2007, June 26, 2007 and February 13, 2008. However, withdrawal after July 6, 2006 .....

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, there is a gap between withdrawals and deposits of the amount. In respect of deposit made on February 13, 2008 is also within one month from the withdrawal of amount on January 7, 2008. In respect of other entries, the cash withdrawal is even before one year of deposit of the amount. The contention of the assessee is that the amount 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 .....

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