Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (12) TMI 823

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ely. 2. Additional grounds during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has raised additional grounds, which are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in enhancing the addition to the tune of Rs. 40,81,465/- u/s.251(10) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of cash deposited in Bank accounts treated as alleged unexplained cash deposits. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunity to hear the case, hence, the case may please be allowed and set aside to the CIT(A), Surat. 3. I am .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n AIR information that the assessee has made deposits of Rs. 34,01,055/- in his saving bank account with ICICI Bank Limited during the year under consideration. Therefore, the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in the said bank account. However, no response has been received from the assessee, therefore, after verification of the bank statements of the ICICI Bank, the AO noted that peak balance has been reflected at Rs. 1,12,972/- on 18-09-2008. The AO further noted that as far as the remaining credit of Rs. 28,17,000/- is concerned, the GP of the same at the rate of 20% was estimated which work out to Rs. 5,63,400/-. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 6,76,372/- being peak balance of Rs. 1,12,972/- and GP @ 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6,76,372/- made by the AO was enhanced to Rs. 40,81,465/-. 9. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. counsel submitted that the Bank account with the ICICI bank account shows the cash deposits and the equal amount of cash withdrawals through ATM. The ld. AO has adopted peak on the basis that the entire amount of deposits in the bank account cannot be considered as income of the assessee. The ld. counsel submitted the chart showing cash deposits and cash withdrawals, according to which peak balance is as on 18-09-2019 comes to at Rs. 1,68,025/- as against Rs. 1,12,972/- considered by the AO. This is due to the fact that the assessee has considered both the saving bank accounts and worked out the peak. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee; therefore the addition has been rightly made. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. We find that the bank account of the assessee is showing cash deposits and simultaneously cash withdrawals within a day or today. Therefore, the entire cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained as there is the debit and credit on both account. It is further discernable from the pattern of cash deposit as reflected from the bank account that these deposits are simultaneously being withdrawn. Therefore, in such a situation the only course of action is to consider the peak balance for addition, which is supported by various decisions cited by ld. counsel. We find that the peak balance as on 18- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... come there is no question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore penalty imposed by the AO is not sustainable in law. The ld. counsel further placed reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji (1972) 85 ITR 77 (Guj.), wherein the penalty proceedings having been initiated against the assessee on the basis of concealment of income and imposed on the basis of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of as income is held not to be justified. The ld. counsel also relied in the case of CIT v. Samson Perichery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) 17. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates