TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was a partner in M/s S.D. Marketing Co. having 60% share, besides proprietor of two concerns - HELD THAT:- Assessee withdrew money from the accounts of the said concerns from time to time in connection with the business of the said concerns - authorities below have not examined this aspect in order to verify the contention of the assessee - authorities below have not controverted the plea of the assessee that the assessee had personal cash balance of ₹ 1,06,758/- as on 01- 04-2012. Assessee has discharged the onus of explaining the credit entries in question, however, the authorities below have rejected the explanation without assigning any cogent reason or rebutting the contention of the assessee. The facts of the case and the evidence on record suggest that the CIT(A) has sustained the addition without considering the explanation given by the assessee - action of the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the settled principles of law - we direct the AO to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 1219/Chd/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2020 - SHRI. N. K. SAINI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted an application for admitting additional evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the same to the A.O. for his comments on admissibility as well as on merit qua the impugned addition made to the income of the assessee. After receiving the report from the A.O. the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- made on account of low household expenses and addition ₹ 1,03,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The assessee has challenged the impugned order by raising the following effective grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of ₹ 6 lakhs made by the A.O. on account of low household expenses. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of ₹ 1,03,000/- made by the A.O. on account of cash deposits in the bank account. 5. Vide ground No 1 the assessee has challenged the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9. On the other hand the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that since the assessee has failed to explain to the satisfaction of the authorities below, as to how he could manage with the expenses of ₹ 12,000/- per month, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the addition made by the AO. The Ld. DR further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) to interfere with. 10. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on the record including the cases relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the authorities below. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, the AO has made the addition in question without considering the fact that in the assessment year 2012-013, the assessee had made withdrawals of the same amount and no addition was made on account of low household expenses. We further notice that the AO has not given any reason for estimating the household expenses more than four times in the assessment year under consideration as compared to the expenses shown by the assessee in the immediate preceding assessing year. The Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of ₹ 41,00,000/- made by the A.O. in assessee's appeal for the A.Y. 2012-13. The opening cash balance of R.s 1,06,758/- as on 01/04/2012 which was deposited on different dates. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jaya Agarwal Vs. ITO reported in 302 CTR 0241 (Del) submitted that the authorities below have wrongly rejected the explanation given by the assessee without pointing out any justification and ground to hold to the contrary. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Parneeta Goyal in ITA No. 278 of 2010, submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court there is no bar in depositing or withdrawing any amount unless and until some foul play is brought on record. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition made by the AO. 13. On the other hand the Ld. DR supporting the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that since the assessee has failed to explain the impugned credits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
