TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial in the hands of authorities. Accordingly, the earlier withdrawals are available to the assessee to redeposit into the said bank account. Further, the assessee explained that there was gift from mother, the assessee has filed confirmation letter from mother before CIT (Appeals), disbelieved it since the credit worthiness of donor was not proved. In our opinion, once the confirmation letter was filed by the assessee from Donor, the burden cast upon assessee is discharged and it would shift to revenue authorities. The Revenue authorities cannot make addition without making any further enquiry. Therefore in these circumstances, the lower authorities are not justified in making addition toward unexplained deposits into bank account. Being so, we have no hesitation in deleting the addition sustained by the CIT (Appeals) on this issue and the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 2236/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2021 - SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP Revenue By : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (D.R) ORDER PER SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M. : The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of his mother s foreign travel expenditure for which the mother had given a sum of ₹ 4,99,000/- and ₹ 1,50,000/- as a gift to the Appellant. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed his Return of Income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 21.11.2015, declaring income of ₹ 3,01,000 u/s. 44AD of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued Notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and the assessee filed letter dt.11.12.2017 that the deposit of ₹ 1,47,13,060 related to the sale of ancestral property of 2.04 Acres as per Sale Deed dt.10.06.2016. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received a sum of ₹ 3,96,00,000 on different dates in the form of cheques and RTGS. This showed that including TDS the assessee had received ₹ 4 Crores out of this sale transaction. Therefore the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had not received any amount in cash during the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to the A.Y. 2015-16. Regarding cash deposit of ₹ 8,87,000 in National Co-operative Bank, the assessee submitted that the cash deposits on 22.01.2015 of ₹ 4,99,000 and on 10.03.2015 of ₹ 1,50,000 were received from his mother ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh deposts. As regards the confirmation from the assessee's mother for the sums of ₹ 4,99,000 and ₹ 1,50,000 apart from stating that she has filed her return, the amount of returned income is not mentioned and hence the creditworthiness of this party is not established. No supporting documents were furnished by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. Hence the explanation given for the cash deposits in Natonal Co-operative Bank is also without merit. The CIT (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has deposited a sum of ₹ 1,47,13,060 into his bank account with Punjab National Bank out of sale consideration. According to learned Authorised Representative the assessee frequently withdrawn the cash from the bank account for his business purpose and when it was not expended, the same was redeposited into bank account on various occasions. He drew our attention to the para 3.5 of assessment order which is in contradictory nature where the Assessing Officer stated that he has accepted the source of depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for in the notice dated 07/07/2017 in respect of para 2 3 of annexure may need not be sent In view of the above directions, the assessee has not produced the information called for in para 2 and 3 of Letter Dt. 07-07-2017 which includes primary evidence such as P L Account, supporting vouchers and bills, Bank Accounts and relevant details in support of Bank Credits including Cash Book and Lease Deeds which were the basic evidence for the source of Cash Deposit. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the additional evidence being the lease deeds and Cash Book were verifiable with reference to the Bank Credits but the Ld. CIT(A) has neither verified the genuineness of the lease deeds nor called for a remand report to meet the ends of justice. Therefore the assessee is aggrieved with the Appellate Order in so far as rejection of the Additional evidence is concerned. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the Lease Deposit of ₹ 20,00,000/- was stated to have been received from Sri. Lokesh on 21-04-2014, but the cash deposits amounts to ₹ 26,05,000/- from 21-04-2014 to 23-04-2014. Similar view was also held in other two lease deed deposits. The ld. AR submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance on the Supreme Court decision in case of Tek Ram v/s. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 113 (SC) and the Hon'ble P H High Court in the case of Muktha Metal Works (2011) 336 ITR 555 (P H), held that the additional evidence as being relevant required to be looked into. The Tribunal in para 6.1 held as under 6. 1 In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted these additional evidences and decided the appeal of the assessee on merits. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to admit the additional evidences as above and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits, giving reasons of decision on merits in accordance with law by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to assessee. Under these facts and circumstances the Appellant prays that this Hon'ble ITAT be pleased to set-aside the order of the authorities below and restore the declared income in the interest of equity and justice. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the source of deposit in the bank account. The ld.DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income . It is merely because the assessee is running a business in which found certain unexplained deposit, it does not necessarily show that such deposits represented the suppressed business receipts and there would be no error of law in regarding unexplained deposits as income of the assessee from other sources. Unless there are strong reasons for connecting unexplained deposits with known source of income of the assessee, there will be no alternative to treating them as income from other sources . Being so, we have to see the nature and sources of each deposit of ₹ 63 lakhs into Bank account. 7. In the present case, the assessee pleaded that unexplained deposit in bank account is from the following sources : (i) Shri M. Lokesh ₹ 20 lakhs on 21.4.2014 (ii) Shri M. Rajashekar ₹ 21 lakhs on 4.8.2014 (iii) Shri Dharmendra ₹ 22 lakhs on 9.8.2014 ₹ 63 lakhs. To support these claims, the assessee filed copy of lease agreement with the respective parties. These documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
