Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 1236 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2015 (3) TMI 1236 - ITAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Unexplained cash credit - addition on cash deposits - Held that:- There is nothing on record to show that the amount of ₹ 13 lakhs withdrawn by the assessee on 17.12.2008 was used for some other purpose. In our opinion, the said withdrawal having been made by the assessee just before a week i.e. on 17.12.2008, the same can reasonably be treated as available with the assessee for cash deposit of ₹ 21 lakhs made on 24.12.2008 especially when t .....

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 P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For Assessee : Mr. A.V. Raghuram For Revenue : Mr. Ramakrishna Bandi ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad dated 10.01.2014 whereby he confirmed the addition of ₹ 21 lakhs made by the A.O. on account of cash deposit of ₹ 21 lakhs found to be made in the bank account of the assessee treating the same as unexplained cash c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such verification, he found that there were cash deposits made from time to time aggregating to ₹ 33,75,000. Although it was explained by the assessee that the said amount was deposited out of cash withdrawals made from the same account on earlier dates as well as sale proceeds of his proprietary business, the A.O. did not find the same to be acceptable in the absence of any supporting evidence. Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 21 lakhs was added by him to the total income of the assessee in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ade by the A.O. for the following reasons given in paras 4.2 to 4.4 of his impugned order. 4.2. I have considered the facts on record and the submissions of the A.R. I have also examined the cash flow statement prepared by the appellant on the basis of the bank transactions. The explanation of the A.R. is based entirely on the claim that the deposits had been made out of the cash withdrawals earlier made from the same account. However, contrary to the A.R s claim, I do not find any proximity bet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

had made a deposit of ₹ 21,00,000 on 24.12.2008. There was a withdrawal of ₹ 13,00,000 on 17.12.2008 before the deposit and of ₹ 16,00,000 on 30.12.2008 after it. The appellant has failed to explain why a substantial sum of ₹ 13,00,000 was withdrawn from the bank merely to keep it idle as cash only to redeposit it a week later. The appellant has also failed to explain why the appellant needed to continue withdrawing cash even when apparently large cash balance were avail .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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