Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kavita B. Patil Versus The Income Tax Officer

2016 (11) TMI 1298 - ITAT PUNE

Addition of unexplained cash deposits in Bank Account - Held that:- In case cash was available with the assessee out of withdrawals made from the bank account, where was the necessity to draw ₹ 1000/- to ₹ 2000/- from day-to-day and even on one particular day, the withdrawal of money by two or three different transactions through ATM. The assessee has deposited sum of ₹ 50,000/- on 26.03.2007 and further sum of ₹ 30,000/- on 30.03.2007, before depositing sum of ₹ 14 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ls made by the husband of assessee. The assessee has filed on record the bank statement of her husband. Undoubtedly, there are cash withdrawals from the said bank account but the withdrawals are similarly made by her husband in the range of ₹ 2000/- to ₹ 5000/- and on some occasions higher withdrawals of ₹ 10,000/- to ₹ 15,000/- has been made. However, the explanation filed by the assessee cannot be accepted in the entirety as the household expenses are also to be met out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Shri Hari Krishna Respondent by : Shri Anil Kumar Chaware ORDER Per Sushma Chowla, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-3, Pune, dated 12.04.2016 relating to assessment year 2007-08 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,00,900/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e addition of ₹ 2,00,900/-. The assessee has also raised the issue against interest charged under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,07,064/-. In response to the notice issued for scrutiny, the assessee herself attended and explained the return and produced the documents / information as called for. The assessee was employed with HDFC Bank Ltd. and derives income from salary .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

00,900/- were treated as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act. 5. Before the CIT(A), the assessee explained that she was working with HDFC Bank and this was her only source of income. The husband of assessee was employed with Citi Bank Group, Pune and it was further claimed by the assessee that her husband s income was about ₹ 8 lakhs and he had drawn certain amounts from Citi Bank account, which were deposited by the assessee in her bank account totaling ₹ 2,00,900/-. Bef .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ome cash withdrawals, which in turn, had been utilized for the purpose of cash deposits in the bank account. Another plea raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in respect of withdrawals made by the husband of assessee totaling ₹ 6,43,200/- and it was pointed out that part of the said amount was utilized by the assessee for deposits into the bank account. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee also referred to the bank statement filed by the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

:- Date Amount 21/6/06 69300/- 02/8/06 25000/- 01/2/07 12000/- 05/2/07 14600/- 26/3/07 50000/- 29/3/07 30000/- Total 2,00,900/- 10. The assessee claims that the source of said cash deposits were out of withdrawals made by the assessee and her husband from day-to-day from their respective bank accounts. It was explained by the assessee that she was salaried employee with HDFC Bank and her husband was employee of Citi Bank group and beside the salary income, which was their major source of income, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ATM withdrawals, as against which, sum of ₹ 69,300/- was deposited on 21.06.2006. The assessee at best has explained the availability of ₹ 31,000/- as cash in hand because the earlier withdrawals made by the assessee were too petty. On a particular date, the assessee was sometimes making withdrawals of two different amounts i.e. on 26.04.2006, there was ATM withdrawal of ₹ 1500/ - and another ATM withdrawal of ₹ 400/ -. Similar entries are found on various dates i.e. on 0 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay-to-day and even on one particular day, the withdrawal of money by two or three different transactions through ATM. The assessee has deposited sum of ₹ 50,000/- on 26.03.2007 and further sum of ₹ 30,000/- on 30.03.2007, before depositing sum of ₹ 14,600/- on 05.02.2007, against which there were no cash withdrawals in intervening dates. The availability of cash in the hands of assessee in these circumstances is thus, doubted except as referred in the paras above that the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version