TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of law has been claimed for determination by this Court: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order of the Hon ble ITAT is correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, holding that the cash credits were out of sale of property where the assessee failed to prove the nexus between the cash deposits and withdrawals from bank/sale proceeds of the house. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal, are that the assessee filed her return of income on 26.9.2005 for the assessment year 2005-06 declaring income of ₹ 87,747/-. The assessing officer having come to know of cash deposits of ₹ 10,97,300/- and ₹ 32,84,000/- made by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following finding: It is seen that the impugned additions were made by the Assessing Officer on the plea that the assessee has furnished bulky information simply to escape from the situation. We are not in agreement with such a finding because unless and until any specific defect is pointed out, such a finding cannot be sustained and second, if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied, nothing prevented him to ask the assessee to explain the source of the amounts where he was having any doubt. Undisputedly, the assessee furnished the copies of bank statements, cash book and other details as required by him. The claim of the assessee is further fortified from the fact that even the Assessing Officer himself has mentioned at page 1 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee (running into 59 pages) contains cash book for financial year 2004-05, bank statement of IndusInd Bank Account No. 782245 and 782828, bank statement of Vijaya Bank, copy of books of account along with relevant entries, various replies filed by the assessee clearly shows that the assessee furnished the necessary details. As far as the plea of the learned DR that bulky information was filed by the assessee itself cannot be the basis of addition and for this proposition, we are fortified by the decision in the case of Narndra G. Goradia (HUF) Vs. CIT (234 ITR 571) (Bom). In the absence of any specific defect or rejection of books of account, the information/books of account filed by the assessee simply cannot be brushed aside. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
