TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to the very root of the matter. If the provisions invoked are held to be non applicable, the very charge for making the addition does not survive and it cannot be converted to that of another entirely different provision. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has evidently erred in applying the provisions of section 69 of the Act, observing that the nature and source of cash deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- could not be satisfactorily explained with credible or cogent evidence and hence the section of deemed income created by section 69 comes into operation. Section 69 of the Act talks of clauses where the assessee had made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income and the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtion basis and declared by the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The assessee s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reasons that there were cash deposits exceeding the threshold limit into his savings bank accounts with OBC, Bucho, Central Bank of India, and State Bank of Patiala. The AO called for the details of source of cash deposits in the aforesaid accounts pursuant to which a cash flow statement was furnished. From the said cash flow, the AO found that there was a credit balance of only ₹ 6,63,082/- as on 11.08.2010 and that the source of subsequent cash deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- on 20.08.2010 was sought to be explained as receipt of biana for sale of land from one Sh. Gobinder Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to the purported advance by Sh. Gurbinder Singh to the assessee, the account had only a petty balance of ₹ 2916/- only. With these facts in the possession of the AO, it was held by him that the assessee had no satisfactory explanation for the impugned cash deposit of ₹ 12,00,000/- and the said amount was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 12,00,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had committed a mistake by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, in making the addition of ₹ 12,00,000/-; and that in the given set of facts, the appropriate section was section 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), thus, confirmed the addition, but by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een held to be wrongly applied the provisions of section 69, whether the addition can be sustained by invoking, instead, the provisions of section 69 of the Act. It cannot be gainsaid that section 68 of the Act deals with the cash credits, whereas section 69 concerns the unexplained investments. At the outset, the area of both these sections are clear and distinct. Section 68 attracts where there are unexplained cash credits and section 69 applies in the case of unexplained investments. In the present case, the AO invoked the section 68, made an addition qua unexplained cash credit. Now whether the ld. CIT(A) has been correct in converting this charge of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act to that of unexplained investment u/s 69 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
