Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ajay Ramesh Sanghvi Versus ACIT, Range 16 (2) , Mumbai

2017 (9) TMI 1100 - ITAT MUMBAI

Unexplained cash deposit in bank account u/s 68 - Held that:- As the assessee has explained cash deposit of ₹ 2,50,000 on 07-05- 2009 out of opening cash balance brought forward from previous financial year. We find tht opening cash balance of ₹ 3,17,000 has been explained as out of cash withdrawal from Citi Bank in February, 2011. We further observe that these bank accounts are declared in the regular return filed for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we are of the view that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ards low household expenses - Held that:- We do not find any merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that when an assessee is having a total income of ₹ 1,30,69,630 as income, an expdenditure of ₹ 24,000 per annum for his household expenses cannot be relied upon. As rightly observed by the CIT(A), the assessee is residing in posh are of Mumbai City for which ₹ 2,000 pm is not at all sufficient to manage his household expenses. At the same time, the estimate made .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

EMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) For The Appellant : Shri Madhur Agarwal For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Mittal ORDER Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)- 30, Mumbai dated 31-08-2015 and it pertains to AY 2010-11. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred rejecting the appellant's contention and disallowing the long 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

the addition on account of alleged difference in the sale value & fair market value of ₹ 10,17,900/- may be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the part of the addition on account of cash deposited into bank U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the addition on account of such cash deposit of ₹ 3,35,000/- may be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d expenditure of Rs, 18.,00,000 was arrived at on the basis of conjectures and surmises without having regard to any concrete material whatsoever that would justify the said estimate; d) making the impugned enhancement on the basis of erroneous and irrelevant observations, without giving the appellant an opportunity to Show cause as stipulated in section 251(2). It is, therefore, prayed that the erroneous observations of the Hon'ble CIT (A) may kindly be ignored and the impugned enhancement, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m house property, capital gain and income from other sources, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 20-07-2010 declaring total income of ₹ 1,30,69,630. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to notices, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details, as called for. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22-02-2013 determinin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

50C and addition made by the AO towards cash deposit into bank account u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A), after considering the assessee s submissions and also relying upon certain judicial precedents, partly allowed appeal filed by the assessee wherein the CIT(A) partly allowed grounds raised by the assessee challenging addition made by the AO towards recomputation of long term capital gain by adopting sale consideration as per provisions of section 50C of the Act. Insofar as addit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

financial year, failed to furnish supporting evidence explaining the source of income for opening cash balance brought forward from earlier year. In addition, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment in respect of personal drawings by stating that the assessee has shown a meager drawing of ₹ 24,000 per annum which is quite low compared to his status and income declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, considering the status of the assessee and also the fact that he is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the course of hearing the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that he did not want to press grounds 1 & 2 challenging the addition sustained by the CIT(A) towards recomputation of long term capital gain. Hence, grounds 1 & 2 are dismissed as not pressed. 5. The next issue that came up for our consideration is addition sustained by the CIT(A) towards unexplained cash deposit in bank account u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld.CIT(A) sustained addition to the extent of ₹ 3,35,000 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-sheet along with return of income. The AO made additions merely on the ground that the assessee has not filed wealth-tax returns to prove the source available towards opening cash balance brought forward from earlier years. The assessee referring to the paper book filed submitted that the opening balance brought forward from earlier year was explained with cash withdrawals from Citi Bank account in the previous Financial Year for which bank statement as well as cash book has been furnished befo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has filed necessary evidences to explain the source of cash deposit for ₹ 2,50,000; hence, we direct the AO to delete additions of ₹ 2,50,000 out of total addition sustained by the CIT(A) of ₹ 3,35,000. Insofar as balance amount, though the assessee claims to have source, failed to file necessary evidence to explain cash deposit on various dates. Therefore, we sustain the balance amount of ₹ 85,000 as unexplained cash credit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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