TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any allegation for the genuineness of the amount credited in the bank accounts other than cash. Keeping the cash in hand idle for almost a year ranging from ₹ 4,91,005/- from February, 2013 to ₹ 9,51,605/- at the end of January, 2014 cannot be a basis to reject the claim of the assessee. There is no bar under the Income Tax Act which restricts a person from keeping cash in hand idle for a certain period. Cash flow statement clearly depicts that the assessee was having sufficient cash in hand from genuine sources which was used to make deposits totaling to ₹ 6,86,000/- during February, 2014 and March, 2014. As the assessee has been successful to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account no addition was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing grounds of appeal; 1. That on the facts of the case and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the findings of learned CIT(Appeal)-II are bad and opposed to facts, equity and law and are, therefore, unsustainable in law. 2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in violating the principles of natural justice by not providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O erred in making a scrutiny assessment u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the act as well as Ld. CIT(Appeal) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dates starting from 24.02.2014 till 15.3.2014 and except one deposit of ₹ 14,000/- the remaining amount of ₹ 6,85,000/- were deposited in 14 installments at ₹ 49,000/- each. The assessee was asked about the source of the cash deposit. It was contended by assessee that accumulated cash withdrawals were sufficient to cover the alleged cash deposit. Submission of the assessee could not get favour from the Ld. A.O and he made the addition of ₹ 7,00,000/- for undisclosed cash deposit in bank account. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the alleged addition of ₹ 7,00,000/- and partly succeeded as Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition for cash deposit of ₹ 14,000/- due to smallness of the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of appeal) by Ld. CIT(A). We observe that the assessee was searched u/s 132 of the Act on 13.8.2014 being part of the Regal Group in which assessee s husband was one of the partner in M/s Regal Samarth Krishna Builders. During the assessment proceedings for the block period Assessment Year 2009-10 to Assessment Year 2015-16 consolidated assessment was framed. For Assessment Year 2014-15 Ld. A.O on noticing that in February 2014 to March 2015 cash of ₹ 49,000/-was deposited 14 times. Assessee was unable to convince both the lower authorities about the source of alleged cash deposited. 9. Cash flow statements have been filed before the lower authorities and also before us. From perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
