TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- on 13.04.2009. It, therefore, appears that the date was wrongly mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order because the observations of the AO in the assessment order was that a sum of ₹ 40,000/- was deposited on 13.04.2009 for which no source of deposit was shown in cash flow statement and in the copy of the cash book also. In opinion, if no such entry had been shown, the addition to that extent deserves to be sustained. Accordingly, addition of ₹ 40,000/- is sustained. The another addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on account of house hold expenses out of the cash withdrawals. In opinion, the said addition was not sustainable, particular when nothing was brought on record to substantiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mt. Sunita Sharma, he also filed an affidavit in this regard. The AO accepted the deposit of ₹ 10,00,000/- which was the advance received against the sale of residential house but did not accept the other deposits of ₹ 6,09,000/- out of the following deposits amounting to ₹ 16,09,000/-: SI. No. Date of deposit Amount of deposit 1. 13.04.2009 40,000 2. 14.07.2009 20,000 3. 01.08.2009 60,000 4. 29.08.2009 50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Fiannce Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) ITO Vs Diza Holdings (P) Ltd. 120 Taxman 539 (Kerla) 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: 4.3 AR of the appellant filed written submission dated 14.09.2014. Relevant part of submissions is reproduced here under:- The 2nd 3rd ground of appeal is against addition of ₹ 6 lacs on A/c of alleged deposits in bank A/c. The bank account of the appellant is a joint A/c with his wife Smt. Sunita Sharma who is separately assessed to tax under PAN:- AUYPS4407R. Copy of computation of taxable income of the wife, obtained from the record of the Ld. AO is placed at page 1 of the paper book. The affidavit of wife Smt. Sunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla and Others reported at 121 TTJ 366 has held as No addition u/s 69 could be made only because there was some time gap between withdrawal and cash deposits. In view of above submission your good self is prayed to please allow this grounds of appeal and delete the addition of ₹ 6 lacs made by the Ld. AO. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee restricted the addition to ₹ 3,94,900/- by observing in paras 4.4 and 4.5 of the impugned order as under: 4.4 I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions. It is evident from the facts on record that there have been number of cash withdrawals and cash deposits from the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usehold expenses at Rs, 2,00,000/- and accordingly hold that the balance cash was available with the appellant from which he could have made cash deposits. The total addition is accordingly recomputed as under:- i) Rejection of appellant's claim of opening balance - Rs.1,54,900/- ii) Deposit on 13.04.2009 for which no explanation has been furnished -Rs.40,000/- iii) Amount used for household expenses out of cash withdrawals which has been claimed as a source for cash deposits -Rs.2,00,000/- 4.5 The total addition is accordingly is restri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. In the present case, it is noticed that out of the addition of ₹ 3,94,900/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) a sum of ₹ 1,54,900/- was the opening cash balance which was brought forward by Smt. Sunita Sharma in her cash book, so, the said amount was not pertaining to the year under consideration and cannot be added. The another addition of ₹ 40,000/- was sustained for the deposits on 03.04.2009. However, on the perusal of the bank account (copy of which is placed at page nos. 4 to 7 of the assessee s paper book), it is noticed that there was no such deposits on 03.04.2009. However, there was cash deposit of ₹ 40,000/- on 13.04.2009. It, therefore, appears that the date was wrongly mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
