TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Held that:- The assessee has income from salary, house property and income from other sources. The assessee has no business income in assessment year under appeal. The assessee is also not a property dealer. - assessee did not produce any evidence in support of same, if any, transaction was conducted by assessee dealing in any property. - ultimately, assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposit in the bank account. Even as against the returned income declared, the deposit of cash in the bank account is more. Therefore, assessee has no explanation at all for deposit of the cash in the bank account. Mentioning of wrong Section in the orders of the authorities below would not be fatal to the case of Revenue. May be tec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income from house property and income from other sources. As per AIR information, there was a cash deposit of ₹ 35,25,000/- in the S.B. A/c maintained with Punjab National Bank in assessment year under appeal. The assessee was asked to file complete bank statement of her S.B. A/c in Punjab National Bank. On perusal of the said bank statement, it was found that during the year there was a cash deposit of ₹ 35,25,000/-. The assessee explained that assessee has withdrawn an equivalent amount from her bank account during assessment year under appeal for a property deal, but, due to some difference of opinion between the parties, the deal could not be materialized and the same was either deposited back by the assessee in her account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that cash of ₹ 48 lakhs was withdrawn by assessee from her bank account for purchase of property in Hargovind Enclave, Delhi- 92, for a total consideration of ₹ 85 lakhs through a real estate agent. The real estate agent has advised the assessee to keep the cash in hand ready atleast of 50% of the total price of the property. When deal did not materialize, cash was redeposited. The A.O, however, noted that during the year assessee has withdrew total amount of ₹ 99,25,000/- and 50% of the purchase would be ₹ 42,50,000/- but, assessee has made more withdrawals. The assessee acted against advise of property dealer and do not re-deposit the same amount in the bank account, the assessee should have withdrawn 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ource of the cash deposit was not explained to the satisfaction of the authorities below and no evidence was filed with regard to purchase of any alleged property by assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) found that assessee failed to explain source of the cash deposit of ₹ 26,25,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 in which it was held that taxing authorities are permitted to look into the circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities. By applying such test, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the explanation of assessee of withdrawals and redeposit is not satisfactory and accordingly, confirmed the addition of ₹ 26,25,000/-. The assessee is in appeal ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute that assessee made cash deposits of ₹ 35,25,000/- in her bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank. The assessee has income from salary, house property and income from other sources. The assessee has no business income in assessment year under appeal. The assessee is also not a property dealer. The assessee explained before the authorities below that cash was withdrawn from her bank account to deal in properties. However, assessee did not produce any evidence in support of same, if any, transaction was conducted by assessee dealing in any property. The assessee, thus, failed to explain the source of the cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee also failed to explain any co-relation between the cash deposit and ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through any cogent and reliable evidence and surrounding circumstances speak against the assessee. The explanation of assessee has been correctly rejected by the authorities below because there was no explanation to the satisfaction of the authorities below. Learned Counsel for the Assessee merely contended that assessee did not maintain the books of account, therefore, no addition under section 68 of the Act could be made and relied upon the decision of ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of ITO vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra (supra). However, Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jauharimal Goel (2006) 201 CTR 54 (All.)/(2008) 296 ITR 263 (All.) held that deposit in the bank account would amount to investment under section 69 of the I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
