TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore i.e on 22.09.2005, the balance investment of ₹ 70,000/- [i.e ₹ 1,00,000/- (-) ₹ 30,000/-] is held to be the income of the assessee as having been made from unexplained sources. We further find that the assessee had deposited an amount of ₹ 3,54,000/- in his bank account during the period 13.10.2005 to 23.01.2006. We find, that the aforesaid cash deposits are preceded by cash withdrawals aggregating to ₹ 2,32,000/- during the period 26.09.2005 to 22.10.2005. We thus, are of the considered view that the cash deposits of ₹ 2,32,000/- (out of the cash deposits of ₹ 3,54,000/-) stands explained to be have been sourced out of the aforesaid cash withdrawals. We thus, uphold the balance addition of ₹ 1,22,000/- [i.e ₹ 3,54,000/- (-) ₹ 2,32,000/-] in the hands of the assessee. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations substitute the addition of ₹ 11,49,000/- sustained by the CIT(A), by an addition of ₹ 4,67,750/- [i.e ₹ 2,75,750/- (+) ₹ 70,000/- (+) ₹ 1,22,000/-] in the hands of the assessee. - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.1445/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receding the same. The A.O taking cognizance of the narrations mentioned against certain cash deposits viz. transfer from sonin- law and transfer from son , called upon the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the persons who had deposited money in his bank account, as well as substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. However, the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid directions of the A.O. Subsequently, the assessee on being called upon by the A.O to explain as to why the cash deposits in his bank account may not be treated as his income from unexplained sources, related the credits in his bank account to four sources of receipts viz. (i) amount received from relatives: ₹ 14,18,755/-; (ii) amount received as business income: ₹ 1,13,911/; (iii) rental income: ₹ 81,500/-; and (iv) opening cash balance of ₹ 57,513/-. It was further submitted by the assessee that the amount received by him from his relatives of ₹ 10,92,010/- was withdrawn in cash on various dates and re-deposited in the bank account. However, the A.O not being persuaded to subscribe to the explanation of the assessee, declined to accept the same. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als and cash deposits [forming part of the order of the CIT(A)], submitted that the assessee during the period 01.07.2005 to 02.08.2005 had made cash withdrawals aggregating to ₹ 6,70,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessee had within a period of two months i.e during 15.09.2005 to 23.09.2005 made cash deposits aggregating to ₹ 5,08,250/- in his said bank account. It was thus the contention of the ld. A.R that in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee had within a period of two months redeposited the cash withdrawn from his bank account, no adverse inference as regards the availability of cash in hand with the assessee on the date of the respective cash deposits was liable to be drawn. The ld. A.R in order to drive home his contention that the source of cash deposits could safely be related with the preceding cash withdrawals made by an assessee, relied on the following orders of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal: (i) ACIT Vs. Baldevraj Charla (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Del) (ii) Jagdish N. Thakkar Vs. ITO-23(2)(3) (ITA No.1475/Mum/2009, dated 31.05.2010) (Mum) (iii) Smt. Veerappa T. Shetty Vs. The Dy. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. We shall first advert to the contention of the ld. A.R that as the assessee was not maintaining any books of account, therefore, the A.O had erred in making the addition in respect of the cash deposits appearing in the bank account under Sec. 68 of the Act. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contention of the assessee and are principally in agreement with him that as the bank account cannot be held to be the books of account of an assessee, therefore, an addition made in respect of cash deposits appearing in the bank account cannot be assessed as an unexplained cash credit under Sec.68 of the Act. However, we find from a perusal of the assessment order that the A.O had not made the addition in the hands of the assessee under Sec. 68. Still further, the assessee had assailed the addition of ₹ 11,49,000/- sustained by the CIT(A), on the ground that the latter had erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O under Sec.69A of the Act. We thus, are of the considered view that the aforesaid contention of the assessee that the A.O had erred in making addition under Sec. 68 does not arise from the orders of the lower authorities. We thus, in the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.09.2005 50000 03.10.2005 50000 05.10.2005 50000 07.10.2005 25000 13.10.2005 16000 15.10.2005 100000 18.10.2005 100000 22.10.2005 7000 130000 23.12.2005 4000 23.01.2006 4000 06.03.2006 50000 23.03.2006 10000 We may herein observe, that as the assessee had submitted before the lower authorities that the source of the cash deposits in his bank account were out of the cash withdrawals preceding the same, therefore, our adjudication as regards the sustainability of the addition in respect of the balance cash deposits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations sustain the addition of ₹ 2,75,750/- [i.e ₹ 6,08,250/- (-) ₹ 3,32,500/-] in respect of the cash deposits made by the assessee out of unexplained sources during the aforesaid period. Still further, as regards the cash deposit of ₹ 1,00,000/- made by the assessee on 23.09.2005, after considering the cash withdrawal of ₹ 30,000/- carried out by him a day before i.e on 22.09.2005, the balance investment of ₹ 70,000/- [i.e ₹ 1,00,000/- (-) ₹ 30,000/-] is held to be the income of the assessee as having been made from unexplained sources. 9. We further find that the assessee had deposited an amount of ₹ 3,54,000/- in his bank account during the period 13.10.2005 to 23.01.2006. We find, that the aforesaid cash deposits are preceded by cash withdrawals aggregating to ₹ 2,32,000/- during the period 26.09.2005 to 22.10.2005. We thus, are of the considered view that the cash deposits of ₹ 2,32,000/- (out of the cash deposits of ₹ 3,54,000/-) stands explained to be have been sourced out of the aforesaid cash withdrawals. We thus, uphold the balance addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
