TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er jurisdiction to make an assessment. The additions made should be based on corroborative material evidence and cannot be made merely on the concession by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to accept the contentions of the assessee that the addition in respect of cash deposits made in the assessee s bank account in the year under consideration should be based on peak credit method. The assessee has furnished the working of peak credit before us showing the peak credit of ₹ 10,70,000/-; but this has not been examined by the authorities below. We, therefore, are of the view that the matter be restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the computation of peak credit filed and thereafter to restrict the addition in respect of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee s bank account to the peak credit. - ITA No.1123/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2019 - Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate For the Revenue : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER PE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide order dated 05.06.2015, allowing the assessee partial relief. He upheld the additions of ₹ 35,62,000/- and ₹ 63,000/- and sustained the addition on account of unproved liabilities to the extent of ₹ 4,00,000/- out of the original addition of ₹ 13,70,330/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Davangere, dated 05.06.2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee has preferred this appeal wherein he has raised the following grounds:- 1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT [A] is not justified in sustaining the following amounts aggregating to ₹ 4,00,000/- out of the original addition of ₹ 13,70,330/-made as unproved creditors under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case:- [a] Sri Hanumanthappa ₹ 3,00,000/- [b] Sri R S Rakesh, S/o the appellant ₹ 1,00,000/- 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ser backed out from the deal, the said amount was to be returned to him; out of which a sum of ₹ 4,00,000/- was repaid on 29.03.2009 and a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- was repaid on 30.03.2009 by cash. The balance of ₹ 3,00,000/- payable was genuine and the identity of the party was established. 6.1.3 With regard to the amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- payable to Shri. R. S. Rakesh, S/o the assessee, the learned AR submitted that the said amount was received by way of an account payee cheque and his PAN furnished and therefore this credit cannot be disbelieved. 6.2 Per contra, the learned DR argued that the assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and capacity of these two creditors. The mere receipt of these funds by way of account payee cheques does not further the case of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction in order to establish that the aforesaid essential ingredients under section 68 of the Act are fulfilled. The learned DR submitted that the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition of ₹ 4,00,000/-. 6.3.1 After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri. Jaganatha S. Shetty in ITA No.1220/Bang/2008 dated 19.06.2009. 7.2 The learned DR for Revenue objected to the above ground raised by the assessee. According to the learned DR, it was an agreed addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to ₹ 35,20,000/- made in the assessee s bank account and therefore the assessee cannot now challenge the same. In this regard, the learned DR placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs. DCIT reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 215 (SC) and of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Jayasree Chit Funds Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 740 (Ker). 7.3 In rejoinder, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that mere consent alone cannot confer jurisdiction to assessee. According to the learned AR, the decision of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Jayasree Chit Funds Services (P) Ltd., (supra), turns on its own facts and the same does not apply to the case on hand. It is further submitted that the decision of the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
