TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k accounts separately. Addition as investment in property - Held that:- We find that the assessee had withdrawn a sum of ₹ 1,50,000 as reflected as Paper Book Page No. 42 of cash flow statement. Out of this an amount of ₹ 35,000 was paid in cash on ₹ 49000 was paid in cash on towards purchase of property. Thus, the source of cash payment of ₹ 84,000 is explained. Hence, addition of ₹ 84,000 is deleted. This grounds of appeal is allowed. - I.T.A. No.153/Ind/2015 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2017 - SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Ashis Goyal, Advocate Shri N.D. Patwa, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Mohmd. Javed, Sr. (DR) ORDER PER O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-II-Bhopal[hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)] dated 19.12.2014. This appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11 as against appeal decided in respect of assessment order dated 04.03.2013 passed u/s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961(herein after referred to as the Act) by the ITO- 3(2) Bhopal [hereinafter referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- Out of withdrawal from BOB, Vidisha a/c no. 31370400000029 on 23/06/2009. 15/09/2009 1,00,000/- Advance for salw of plot received in cash on 14/09/2009 amounting to ₹ 1,00,000/- 25/09/2009 4,50,000/- Cash received on sale of plot on 25/09/2009- ₹ 2,72,000/-. ₹ 55,000/- withdrawn from same bank on 18/09/2009 and ₹ 1,23,000/- received from mother. 06/10/2009 4,00,000/- Cash withdrawal from same bank on 01/10/2009 21/10/2009 4,00,000/- Cash withdrawal from same bank on 19/10/2009 29/10/2009 4,00,000/- Cash withdrawal from same bank on 24/10/2009 16/11/2009 4,00,000/- Cash withdrawal from same bank on 04/11/2009 12/01/2010 5,000/- Out of withdrawal from BOB, Vidisha account no. 31370400000206 on 09/10/2010. 10/03/2010 5,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, is liable to be deleted. D-[Bank of Baroda, Vidisha, OD Account No. 31370400000029] Total cash deposits as per bank statement during the year under consideration is ₹ 1,64,600/- whereas the Ld. AO has erratically considered the cash deposits at ₹ 2,11,600/-. Copy of the bank statement is enclosed herewith. Date Cash Deposit [Rs.] Remarks 22/04/2009 50,000/- Out of withdrawal from same bank on 21/04/2009- ₹ 50,000/- 29/04/2009 50,000/- Out of withdrawal from same bank on 28/04/2009- ₹ 50,000/- 02/05/2009 5,000/- Out of withdrawal from same bank on 01/05/2009- ₹ 5,000/- 07/07/2009 7,500/- Out of salary and past savings. 20/07/2009 44,600/- Out of withdrawal from same bank on 14/07/2009- ₹ 50,000/- 7,500/- Petty cash deposits on different dates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avour despite being given adequate opportunities in this regard. The assessee has merely stated these amounts as deposits from cash in hand, received from mother- Mrs. Madhu Pesswani, Mr. Naveen Kumar and out of money withdrawn earlier. Mere filing of income tax return of the lender i.e. his mother does not absolve the assessee of his duty to explain these cash deposits found made in his bank accounts. The income declared by his mother is not found commensurate with the amounts given to the assessee nor there have been equivalent withdrawals from her bank account. The assessee s further contention that such frequent deposits and withdrawals of huge amounts have been necessitated for his mother s treatment and certain property deals are also not found acceptable on the basis of evidences produced. The assessee has also failed to prove satisfactorily that the various amounts deposited in these bank accounts are, indeed made from withdrawals as purpose of these withdrawals has also not been proved. Therefore, theory of peak credit is also not found applicable in his case. 4.4 After perusal of entire material on record, addition of ₹ 34,60,100/- is, hereby, confirmed ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained out of cash received from sale of property. Further, it was claimed that the assessee has received an amount of ₹ 1,23,000 on 25.09.2009 from her mother and similarly an amount of ₹ 25,000 was received in cash from his mother on 04.07.2009 . Thus, total cash amount of ₹ 1,48,000 has been received from the mother of the assessee, and same is deposited in the various bank accounts of the assessee and same is reflected in cash flow statement filed by the assessee. Therefore, it was urged to delete the addition made by the AO. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has sold the property during the year under consideration, hence, there is a possibility that the amount deposited in various bank account is out of on money receipts. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee should not be accepted. 9. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that there are four bank accounts of the assessee viz : two are with BOB at Vidhisha , one is BOB Habibganj, and other one is with Axis Bank. It is noticed that the assessee has made withdrawal of cash from one bank ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO. 13. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had withdrawn a sum of ₹ 1,50,000 on 02-02-2010 from Axis Bank account as appearing at Paper Book Page No. 42 from cash book for registry and permission of house , out of which an amount of ₹ 84000 has been paid in cash towards acquisition of property. Thus, this amount was sufficient to explain to source of cash deposit of ₹ 84,000. 14. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. supported the order of lower authorities. 15. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee had withdrawn a sum of ₹ 1,50,000 as reflected as Paper Book Page No. 42 of cash flow statement. Out of this an amount of ₹ 35,000 was paid in cash on ₹ 49000 was paid in cash on towards purchase of property. Thus, the source of cash payment of ₹ 84,000 is explained. Hence, addition of ₹ 84,000 is deleted. This grounds of appeal is allowed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 17. The order pronounced in the open court on 17.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
