9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From the perusal of the AIR information in the case of the assessee, it was observed that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating to more than Rs. 10 lakhs in the bank accounts maintained with Canara Bank, Sonipat Rs. 21,01,000/- and with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Prashat Vihar, Delhi Rs. 22,07,100/-. Copies of the bank statements were called for under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 from the concerned Bank which revealed that both the Bank accounts pertained to the assessee and the account opening Forms were also singed and verified by the assessee. The explanation of assessee was called for. The written reply of the assessee is reproduced in the assessment order in which the assessee admitted to have maintained the above two b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee regarding deposit of the cash. The A.O. also noted that expenses @ 2% were considered reasonable for earning of such income, therefore, addition was made of Rs. 34,77,138 (Rs.21,62,958 + Rs. 13,14,180/-). The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee reiterated the same submissions and also filed cash flow statement which was filed before A.O. to explain the availability of the cash with the assessee which was from withdrawal from the same bank account as well as from other sources as explained above. The assessee relied upon the some decisions of the Tribunal in support of the contention that cash have been explained. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the explanation of assessee and noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee has withdrawn the cash, it must be used somewhere else because of some necessity. The Ld. CIT(A) found some substantial gain between the withdrawals and re-deposits in the same Bank accounts. Thus, onus was put upon assessee to prove that he has not spent the amount somewhere on withdrawal of the amount. However, the authorities below never doubted the documents on record and the cash flow statement filed by assessee. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shiv Charan Das vs. CIT, Punjab (1980) 126 ITR 263 (P&H) held as under : "Partial partition took place on March 31,1951, of an HUF of which the assessee was the karta. In October, 1951, the. HUF declared a sum of Rs. 20,000 under the Voluntary Disclosure Schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the voluntary disclosure, scheme was not accepted, the presumption that the amount was from undisclosed sources could be raised only against the major daughters of the assessee and not against the assessee himself. Therefore, it could not be said that the amount was income of the assessee from undisclosed sources." 5.1. In this case the deposits were made after 4-5 years and it was directed that Revenue should show that assessee's explanation should not be accepted, therefore, onus upon assessee would not lay to prove that amount withdrawn from the Bank have not been spent on some other items. The A.O. has not brought any evidence on record that the amount withdrawn from the Banks have been spent by assessee somewhere else. Thus, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
