TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities below have taken different stands in respect of cash deposit of ₹ 4 lakhs and cash deposit totaling ₹ 14,95,000/- and there is no merit in the stand of authorities below in this regard. Coming to the explanation filed by the assessee that his father agreed to sell his share of ancestral land to his brother for sum of ₹ 40 lakhs, against which sum of ₹ 6 lakhs was received in the preceding year and ₹ 14,95,000/- was received during the instant assessment year. The assessee has placed on record the copy of agreement to sell and the ‘Rock pavati’ issued by the father of assessee on different dates accepting the said cash. The said cash has also immediately been transferred to the bank account of father of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO which has been subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the addition made under section 68 of the Act at ₹ 14,95,000/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee is an individual and was carrying on business of tourist car hire business under the name and style M/s. Travel Time Car Rental, Pune. The Assessing Officer received ITS data, as per which, the assessee had deposited cash of ₹ 18,95,000/- in Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. on various dates. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account. In reply, the assessee explained that ₹ 4 lakhs was withdrawn from his proprietary concern on 20.08.2007 and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained the source of earning of his uncle i.e. through agricultural income. However, the plea of assessee was rejected on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed the said bank account with Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. in the return of income. The CIT(A) observed that there were several transaction in the said bank which were clearly linked to his business account, therefore, the proposition of assessee that he had not declared his non-business account, was not accepted. The explanation of assessee of receipt of cash by his father and deposit of cash in his bank account and then transfer to the account of father, was held to be illogical. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, against which the assessee is in appeal. 6. The learned Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves, the issue which arises in the present appeal is against the addition of ₹ 14,95,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer during the year under consideration had received information through ITS data that sum of ₹ 18,95,000/- has been deposited in the bank account of assessee with Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. The details of deposits date-wise are as under:- Date of deposit Amount Particulars of Bank 11.06.2007 2,00,000 Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. 14.06.2007 4,00,000 15.06.2007 3,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date of Receipt Amount 07.03.2007 2,00,000 12.06.2007 4,00,000 14.06.2007 3,00,000 30.07.2007 3,50,000 18.08.2007 2,45,000 10. The said cash received by the father of assessee was deposited in the bank account of assessee at Buldhana. The agricultural land is situated in the vicinity of Buldhana and the uncle of assessee who, the assessee claimed had made the said payment as per the agreement to sell also resides in Buldhana. The perusal of bank account reflects that upon cash dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,95,000/- was received during the instant assessment year. The assessee has placed on record the copy of agreement to sell and the Rock pavati issued by the father of assessee on different dates accepting the said cash. The said cash has also immediately been transferred to the bank account of father of assessee. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances and because of family connection between the persons transacting the said transaction, there is no merit in not accepting the plea of assessee and in making the aforesaid addition. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 14,95,000/-. The ground of appeal No.1 is thus, allowed. The alternate plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
