TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of ₹ 14,00,000/- by holding that the deposits were made out of the available cash balance of ₹ 11.49 lakhs with the appellant and the AO had accepted that this cash balance was available with the appellant without considering the fact that the AO had not accepted this submission of the assessee and had actually rejected the same. 2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the AO received information under AIR that a sum of ₹ 14 lakhs was deposited by the assessee in his bank account maintained with Allahabad Bank, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. The AO initiated proceedings u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. In response thereto, the assessee submitted vide his letter dated 11.2.2008 that the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were not explainable. The cash in hand had exceeded the declared income for respective years. This led to believe him that the assessee had cooked up story so as to prove the genuineness of cash deposits in his savings bank account. The AO, therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee and treated the amount of ₹ 14,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit. 3. Before the CIT(A), it was pleaded that addition has been made for the amount declared by the assessee in the balance sheets for the earlier years which were filed/placed in file of AO along with return of income/wealth for various years. The documents filed by the assessee before AO have not been considered. The information available on record was twisted and misinterpreted to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in hand has been declared in the return of income and wealth tax which has not been appreciated by the AO. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. From above facts, it is clear that AO has held that it was difficult to accept that cash of ₹ 14 lakhs has been deposited out of the declared income. At the same time, the contention of the assessee is that AO has totally ignored the return of income filed by the assessee. The CIT(A), in our considered opinion, has gone wrong in saying that AO had appreciated the existence of cash of ₹ 11,49,000/-. The AO nowhere in the assessment order had come to a conclusion that assessee was having cash in hand of ₹ 11,49,000 as on 31.3.2004. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
