TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the bank account of the assessee is properly explained. As such, no addition is warranted on this score. The same is directed to be deleted. Agreement for purchase of a plot cancelled - Held that:- only a receipt of ₹ 6,00,000/-, which was deposited by the assessee in his bank account but the payment by the assessee to Sri Harjeet Singh for a sum of ₹ 6,60,000/- was also through the same bank account. Both the transactions of receipt and payment of cash are evidenced from a copy of the bank statement placed on record. As such, as satisfied that the assessee has successfully explained the source of deposit of ₹ 6,00,000/-, for which no addition is warranted Enhancement in respect of two loans raised - Held that:- C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed declaring total income of ₹ 1,36,000/-. From a copy of bank statement received u/s 133(6) from Yes Bank Ltd., Rudrapur, the Assessing officer computed peak balance in the bank account at ₹ 15,69,769/- on 8.5.2009. In the absence of the assessee participating in the proceedings before the AO, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 read with section 147 determining total income at ₹ 17,05,769/- including the above income of ₹ 15,69,769/-. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). A remand report was called from the Assessing officer in which it was asserted that there were only three cash deposit entries of ₹ 3,40,000/- made on 02-04-2009, ₹ 2,00,000/- made on 25-04-2009 and ₹ 6, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lot at Preet Vihar. Since the transaction could not fructify, the assessee cancelled the agreement and paid back a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- from his saving bank account on 23.09.2009, inclusive of ₹ 50,000 towards damages. The payment transaction is also evidenced from a copy of the assessee s bank account with Yes Bank Ltd., which is available on record. The genuineness of this Agreement has not been doubted by the AO in remand proceedings. This shows that the assessee received cash of ₹ 2,00,000/- from Sri Bhupinder Singh and returned the same with damages of ₹ 50,000/- again through his bank account. Both the transactions are recorded in the same bank account. Thus, it is palpable that the source of deposit of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I am satisfied that the assessee has successfully explained the source of deposit of ₹ 6,00,000/-, for which no addition is warranted. The same is directed to be deleted. 8. It is seen that the Assessing officer made an addition of ₹ 15,69,769/-, being, the peak balance on 08.05.2009. During the course of remand proceeding, the assessee contended that there were only three cash deposit entries of ₹ 2,00,000/-, ₹ 6,00,000/- and ₹ 3,40,000/-. The Assessing officer has also discussed only these three entries in his remand report. However while computing peak balance in the course of assessment proceedings, he also took into consideration opening balance of ₹ 7,39,791/-. In my considered opinion, opening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank account on 08-05-2009. There is no discussion whatsoever in the assessment order about the loan entries in respect of which enhancement was made by the Ld. CIT(A). The Hon ble Delhi High Court in its full bench judgment in CIT vs. Sardari Lal and Company (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Delhi) (FB) has held that the first appellate authority has no power to enhance the assessment by discovering a new source of income, not considered by the AO in the order appealed against. Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Gurinder Mohan Singh Nindrajog vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 170 (Del). Following the Full bench judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Sardari Lal (supra), the Hon ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
