TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do with the money withdrawn from the bank. The court held that as long as the source is explained and established and if money is withdrawn from SB account and paid to discharge loan by deposit into a loan account, it is not possible to hold that the source is not explained. The Court also held that money might have been utilized in the interregnum period for some purpose and thereafter appropriated towards discharge of loan. But that fact cannot be held against the assessee. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case supports the plea of the assessee. The revenue authorities were not justified in rejecting the explanation of assessee with regard to source of deposit of cash in the bank account. The consequent addition made is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.1451/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2018 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Rajendra Chandekar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 26.2.2018 of the CIT(Appeals) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the CIT(A) for the reason that having regard to the human probability and the normal course of human conduct, it cannot be believed that the past withdrawals i.e., withdrawals of two years earlier to the date of deposit would have been kept in cash by the assessee. For the above reason, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the plea of assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the plea as was put forth before the CIT(A) and further relied on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt P. Padmavathi v. ITO, ITA No.414 of 2009, order dated 6.10.2010 . In the aforesaid decision, the source of return of loan was explained by the assessee as out of past withdrawals from the bank account. The explanation of assessee was rejected by the revenue authorities as well as by the Tribunal. On further appeal by assessee to the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, on the question of law, viz., whether the finding of authorities that the source of cash deposits in the loan account is not properly explained, the Hon ble High Court found that the Hon ble Karnataka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an that cannot be held against the assessee. 10. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals). 11. I have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. The assessee maintains bank account with Corporation Bank and it is from this bank that cash was withdrawn and deposited by the assessee. The assessee has to explain the source of ₹ 20 lakhs deposit in cash on 25.5.2013 and ₹ 5 lakhs in cash on 30.5.2013. The assessee has availed a loan of ₹ 5 lakhs from LIC of India and the same was received by the assessee by way of credit in his bank account on 14.02.2013. The following are the withdrawals by the assessee from the aforesaid bank account from April, 2011 till May, 2013:- Month Cash Withdrawals Self cheque Cash Cash Deposits Closing Cash Balance April 2011 38,500 50,000 - 88,500 May 2011 106,500 - - 195,000 June 2011 62,000 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2,050,500 January 2013 47,800 - - 2,098,300 February 2013 97,000 380,000 - 2,575,300 March 2013 135,000 950,000 900,000 2,760,300 Total 907,600 1,529,300 900,000 Month Cash Withdrawals Self cheque Cash Cash Deposits Closing Cash Balance April 2013 140,000 - - 2900,300 May 2013 63,000 - - 2,963,300 Total 203,000 12. Thus, the total cash withdrawn from the bank account by the assessee was ₹ 20,91,500 + 17,71,800 which was withdrawn b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
