TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 15.34 lacs. - Decided in favour of assessee Unexplained investment addition - Held that:- The assessee has carried out his share transactions through M/s. Sushil Finance Securities Pvt. Ltd. And also that he has sold his investment and credited the same to his ledger account directly. The Revenue further fails to dispute the fact that the assessee has made cheque payments from his co-operative bank account whose deposits stood added forming subject matter of adjudication in his cross appeal decided hereinabove. It can thus be concluded that the assessee’s cash deposits/credits added u/s.68 of the Act as well as the opening balance of the said account form source of his impugned investments. We accordingly do not see any reason to interfere in the CIT(A)’s conclusion deleting the impugned addition on account of Revenue’s failure to rebut the same - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.958/Ahd/2013, ITA No.1263/Ahd/2013 with C.O. No.169/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, A.R. For The Revenue : Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that on the basis of said WILL one property i.e. Urvasi Apartment no. 1 was transferred in the name of appellant long back, for which, a consent letter dated 09. 09. 2002 by the other legal heirs of appellant's father was filed with the Registrar Authority. The said consent letter is on stamp paper dt 05. 09.2002. In this background, the appellant stated that the WILL cannot be false WILL. The appellant explained the source of deposits in the said bank account as under :- Opening balance ₹ 697505 Sale Proceeds of Jewellery by pay order ₹ 400400 Dividend ₹ 3999 Interest on S B Account ₹ 20924 Cash deposited in Bank ₹ 1425000 Recd from Sushil Finance ₹ 215060 Refund of Application Money out of FCH issue ₹ 73440 Refund out of Application Money -Issue of Reliance Power Limited ₹ 179310 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank account cannot be accepted irrespective of the payment of ₹ 4, 00, 400/- claimed by the appellant have been received by Pay Orders as no details of such Pay Orders have been furnished. Consequently, the deposit by way of Pay Orders of ₹ 4, 04, 000/- and cash deposits in bank of ₹ 14, 25, 000/- are treated as ' Unexplained deposits' in the bank account. However, the appellant had withdrawn cash to the extent of ₹ 2, 91,0007- prior to the first deposit in Asstt Year 2008-09. Therefore, benefit of rotation of funds or telescoping s granted to the appellant to that extent and the addition made \s restricted to ₹ 15,34,400/- ( ₹ 14,25,000 + ₹ 4, 00, 400/- - ₹ 2,91,000/-) against the addition made of ₹ 24,08,001/-. Consequently, the ground no.2 is partly allowed in favour of the appellant. 5. Heard both sides. Learned counsel representing assessee reiterates his stand adopted throughout that the impugned cash deposits of ₹ 15.34lacs represent sale price of the gold and diamond jewellery items as inherited from his late father by way of a will. He stresses the point that his father had declared the very jewel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this bank account was never disclosed in the regular books of, account. 10.2 The reasoning of the assessing officer and the contention of the appellant have been examined. The appellant had two accounts with M/s Sushil Finance Services Pvt Ltd one in his name and another in the name of his wife Smt. Ketkiben H Tharjiariwala. The gross purchase of shares including opening balance in the name of appellant were of ₹ 37,93,213/- while, in the name of his wife ', the gross purchases were at ₹ 5, 58, 160/-. The set off of sales against the same was ₹ 20, 58, 823/- in the case of the appellant and ₹ 5,59,180/- in the case of appellants wife . The assessing officer in para 6.1 of the assessment order held that the appellant s wife has no other source of income and the 'shares purchased in both the accounts are unexplained investment of the appellant. However, the assessing officer finally added a sum of ₹ 37,93, 213/- only. i.e. the gross purchase of ₹ 5, 58,1607- in the name his wife was not added. This leads to an interpretation that the Assessing Officer accepted the sales set off, in the hands of wife to the extent of ₹ 5,59,18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
