TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ening and closing balances is concerned he upheld the addition made by the AO on the ground that the closing balance of capital as on 31-03-2008 was shown at ₹ 2,91,320/- whereas the opening balance as on 01-04-2008 was shown at ₹ 5,61,320/-. The assessee could not explain the difference of ₹ 2,70,000/- for which he sustained the addition. So far as the addition of ₹ 47,400/- u/s.69B is concerned he upheld the addition on the ground that the value of flat as per registered sale deed dated 22-01-2009 was ₹ 12 lakhs whereas the assessee has shown such investment by himself and in the name of his spouse at ₹ 11,52,600/-. Since the difference could not be explained the addition was sustained by the CIT(A). - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession. He filed his return of income on 16-10-2009 declaring total income of ₹ 2,44,890/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee has deposited an amount of ₹ 23,13,000/- in his savings bank account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra, Tarabai Park Branch and has also deposited an amount of ₹ 3,33,000/- in savings bank account maintained with State Bank of India. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the source of these cash deposits in the above bank accounts. It was explained by the assessee that the Joint Bank Account at Bank of Maharashtra is operated by the assessee and his spouse who is engaged in Film and CD Music Production. The AO, thereafter, asked the assessee to expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in opening and closing balance in the capital balance, ₹ 47,400/- on account of unexplained investment in flat u/s.69B and ₹ 54,880/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the I.T;. Act. The AO also made addition of ₹ 644/- on account of interest on savings bank account which was not disclosed by the assessee after allowing deduction u/s.80C etc. The AO determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 28,99,320/- as against the returned income of ₹ 2,44,890/-. Since there was noncompliance before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the material available on record dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by passing a very elaborate order. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by A.O. under section 69B of the Act, being cash deposited into bank account but without considering the withdrawals from the same account for expenses. The assessee had submitted detailed written submissions before CIT(A) in this respect. Since the appeal order is without considering the written arguments the appeal order is not in consonance with the provisions of law. It be set aside. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-Kolhapur was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 85,243/- made by A.O. u/s. 69B of the Act without properly appreciating the written submissions submitted before him. The addition be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of ₹ 18,49,020/- is concerned the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by observing as under : 5. Thus, it is seen from the assessment proceedings narrated by the assessing officer as reproduced, the assessing officer has repeatedly asked the appellant to furnish details as per various letters. Onus was on the appellant to furnish details and documents to substantiate the figures of income and expenditure filed with the return of income. The assessing officer, during the course of assessment asked the appellant to furnish various details/information etc. After this, vide questionnaire dated 01/07/2011 details and source of cash deposits in bank accounts were requisitioned. Then, letters dated 29/08/2011 and 27/09/2011 we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat cash has come from her. Having failed to do so before the assessing officer, he had another opportunity to substantiate his case before the undersigned. Having failed to do so, the facts before the undersigned are the same as those before the assessing officer that the cash has been deposited in the bank accounts belonging to appellant, the source of which is not explained. On these facts, I have no option but to sustain the addition made by the assessing officer. The ground is rejected. 7. So far as the addition of ₹ 85,243/- u/s.69B of the I.T. Act is concerned the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the AO on the ground that there was no explanation to substantiate the LIC premium of ₹ 85,243/- especially when the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
