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 →

Sh. Raj Rishi Sharma Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rohtak (Haryana)

2016 (8) TMI 313 - ITAT DELHI

Addition on account of cash deposited in the bank account - Held that:- 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uch 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 that out of the withdrawals an amount to the extent of ₹ 2,00,000/- were used by the wife of the assessee f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in this appeal relates to the confirmation of addition of ₹ 3,94,900/- made by the AO on account of cash deposited in the bank account. 3. Facts related to this issue in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 04.08.2010 declaring an income of ₹ 1,94,007/- after claiming the deduction under chapter-VI of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 5. 17.09.2009 55,000 6. 29.09.2009 40,000 7. 13.10.2009 30,000 8. 08.10.2009 13,000 9. 09.10.2009 50,000 10. 24.10.2009 35,000 11. 15.01.2010 10,00,000 12. 19.01.2010 62,000 13. 22.01.2010 1,09,000 14. 11.02.2010 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

63 (Calcutta) CIT VS Korlay Trading Company Ltd. 232 ITR 820 (Calcutta) CIT Vs Precision 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 dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

avit of wife Smt. Sunita Sharma is placed at page 2 of the paper book and that of the appellant is placed at page 3 of the paper book. Smt. Sunita Sharma besides her affidavit had also filed the copy of cash book from 01.04.09 to 31.03.2010 wherein the entire bank transactions are duly shown. The photocopy of the same, as obtained from the Ld. AO is placed at page 4-15 of the paper book. The affidavit is valid piece of evidence as has been held by various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uot;That the assessee cannot be expected to explain each and every transaction appearing in the bank statement. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. AO has not given the benefit of withdrawals from the same bank as is clear from the bank statement placed at page 16-19 of the paper book. The Hon'ble 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 withdraw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h withdrawals and cash deposits from the same bank account i.e. Axis Bank. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case, it is evident that the appellant has not filed any cogent evidence in order to establish that the transactions in the bank account relate to the appellant's wife Smt. Sunita Sharma. The appellant's explanation with regard to the opening balance of ₹ 1,54,900/- in the hands of Smt. Sunita Sharma from which the cash deposits were claimed to have been made .....

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 hand. I do not agree with these views of the A.O. It is a fact on record that the appellant had withdrawn cash from the same bank account in which the cash was deposited. There is no evidence on record that the said cash had been used by the appellant for any investment. Assuming that past of the cash withdrawals were used for the expenditure incurred on household expenses, the credit for the remaining cash withdrawn from the bank needs to be allowed to the appellant. In the given facts and ci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a source for cash deposits -Rs.2,00,000/- 4.5 The total addition is accordingly is restricted to ₹ 3,94,900/-. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed. 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the bank account was maintained by the assessee jointly with his wife Smt. Sunita Sharma who is also assessed to tax. However, the said bank account belonged to her and all the deposits in the bank account were either out of the withdrawals or deposited by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

year under consideration. It was accordingly submitted that the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 8. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that in the joint bank account, first name was of the assessee, therefore, it is to be presumed that the joint bank account belonged to the assessee and the addition was rightly made in his hands for unexplained deposits. 9. We have considered the submissions of b .....

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