TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he included the professional income of ₹ 518831/- as well as remuneration and interest from partnership firm of Priyadarshi Hospital ₹ 219415/-. Her individual gross receipt from private practice shows Gross professional income of ₹ 885690/- which was deposited in that bank account. While explaining the source the assessee has categorically stated that, the above professional receipt was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, addition to that extent naturally amounts to double addition. She was having opening cash balance in hand of ₹ 325492/- which was also deposited. Therefore, the addition on that account also deserves to be deleted in absence of any other finding contrary by the revenue. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the A.O. has not provide proper and reasonable opportunity being heard even he has not considered submission filed by the assessee and passed by Order U/s 144/147 bad in law and against the principle of natural justice. 2. That the A.O. as well as CIT(A) has not considered source of cash deposit by the professional cash withdrawal from Partnership Firm, cash redeposit and opening cash in hand duly full explained the A.O. as well as CIT(A). Therefore, the A.O. made addition U/s 69 of I.T. Act 1961, which is bad in law because the bank passbook is not books of accounts of the assessee. 3. That the Written Submission filed by the assessee is not considered CIT(A) even the assessee furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pported that with computation of income and statement of affairs as on 31.03.2010. The LD CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the ledger account submitted of Priyadarshini Hospital (Firm) were unauthenticated and on the ledger account PAN was not mentioned. The cash deposited therefore, were held to be not correlated hence, and confirmed the addition. The assessee aggrieved with the above order has preferred this appeal before us. 6. The ld AR submitted that the assessee is a Doctor and carrying on private practice as well as partner in M/s. Priyadarshi Hospital. The assessee submitted that assessee has deposited total cash of ₹ 15,11,182/-. The source of deposit was opening cash balance of ₹ 325492/-, out of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership firm was not mentioned in the account. We find that when the assessee filed her return of income she included the professional income of ₹ 518831/- as well as remuneration and interest from partnership firm of Priyadarshi Hospital ₹ 219415/-. Her individual gross receipt from private practice shows Gross professional income of ₹ 885690/- which was deposited in that bank account. While explaining the source the assessee has categorically stated that, the above professional receipt was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, addition to that extent naturally amounts to double addition. Further, it was also stated that she was having opening cash balance in hand of ₹ 325492/- which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 29.03.2011 of ₹ 725200/-. The assessee was found to have deposited cash of ₹ 1358570/- in his saving bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of commerce. The assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act was passed on 05.12.2017 at ₹ 2083770/-. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT (A). The LD CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the similar reason of unauthentic account. 13. The LD AR submitted that assessee is a partner in Priyadarshi Hospital as well as carrying on his professional practice. The assessee also submitted that he has opening cash in hand of ₹ 343108/- and professional fees receipt of ₹ 685010/-. He received ₹ 3 lakhs from Priyadarshi Hospital as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Priyadarshi Hospital the assessee is directed to show by submitting the authentic account of that firm wherefrom the assessee received ₹ 3 lakhs in cash. Further with respect to the gift from relatives shown by the assessee of ₹ 48000/- no information is available. Hence, with a similar direction, we set aside the issue to the extent of ₹ 348000/- to the file of the LD AO with a direction to the assessee to submit authentic copy from the partnership firm wherefrom he received ₹ 3 lakh in cash, which was deposited in the bank. Further, the assessee is also directed to explain the gift from relative of ₹ 48000/-. The above cash being less than ₹ 50000/- is otherwise, exempt u/s 56. However, the assessee mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
