TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in bank account. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the AO did not have any specific evidence inspite of the fact that the AO had given categorical finding in his order wherein some cash deposits were accepted as explained and addition was made only in respect of unexplained cash deposits in view of the strong circumstantial evidence. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting relief to the assessee inspite of the fact that the assessee had not been able to explain the source of cash deposits to the satisfaction of the AO and in view of the judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal V. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 and Sreelekha Banerjee Ors. V. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112, the burden of proof to explain the source of cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount was refunded back by the said contractor to the assessee in October, 2004 which was deposited in the saving bank account. To support an affidavit affirmed on oath by said Sh. Ashok Kumar Sachdeva was also filed in which he admitted the fact of having taken advance of ₹ 8,75,000/- which was refunded back to the assessee. It was submitted that there were other deposits also in the month of April, 2004 aggregating to sum of ₹ 1,33,000/- which was accepted by the AO from the very source i.e. withdrawal of ₹ 10 lakh. Reliance was made on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 to contend that even the rejection of the explanation offered by the assessee as unacceptable by itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l made and amount deposited in the bank account. 4. On the other hand, it was submitted by ld. AR that simply the fact that there was a long gap in the withdrawal and the deposit made cannot be basis for making such addition. He submitted that unless department establishes that the contention of the assessee was incorrect, such addition could not be made. To support such contention ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi Benches in the case of ACIT Vs. Baldev Raj Charla and Oth₹ 121 TTJ (Del.) 366, wherein it was held by the Tribunal that there being no material with the I.T. Authorities to show that the amounts of cash deposits in question, admittedly withdrawn from bank and assessee s concern, were utilized for any other purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A). An affidavit has been filed by the assessee from the contractor, wherein the fact of amount having given to him and amount refunded back by him have been stated and relying upon that affidavit and also going through the cash flow statement ld. CIT(A) has arrived at a finding that the source of the said deposit of ₹ 8,64,000/- is the amount given by the assessee to the said contractor for the renovation work of aforementioned property. None of these facts have been controverted by the revenue. If it is so, and the gap between the withdrawal and deposit of amount have been explained by the assessee, then in our opinion there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which the impugned addition has been deleted on the ground th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
