TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividual and Director of M/s. Pittie Alcast Pvt. Ltd. 4. The assessing officer, during the assessment, found that the assessee has deposits to an extent of ₹ 30,33,000 and sought explanation about the sources of the above amount. It was the submission of the assessee that there were lot of withdrawals in financial year 2007-08 and submitted that the deposit amounts are emanating from the said withdrawals made earlier. The contention of the assessee was not accepted and the assessing officer made the addition of ₹ 30,33,000 under S.68 of the Act. 5. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessing officer has wrongly considered the amount of ₹ 30,33,000 as against ₹ 29,75,000, which was the actually deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt copy on record to submit that they are unable to understand how the above amount was arrived at by the assessing officer, as the assessee has made deposits of only ₹ 29,75,000 in Axis Bank account. It was further submitted that the explanations given before the CIT(A) were not properly considered. With reference to the legal principles, the learned CIT(A) relied upon the following decisions, and contended that addition under S.68 is not warranted, and further that when the assessee explained the source of deposits as from the earlier withdrawals, the same should have been accepted by the CIT(A)- (a) ITO Ward-31(1) New Delhi V/s. Shri Bhupender Pal Singh Chawla AY 2005-06 (ITAT A Bench Delhi ITA No.4080/Del/2010 dated 25.2.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the contentions of the assessee, which was not done in this case. Therefore, in the interests of justice, without going into the legal principles of the addition made, we are of the opinion that the source of deposits requires to be examined by the assessing officer afresh. First of all, he should reconcile the amounts of addition made with the actual deposits made in the account, and then see whether the explanation with reference to source of funds, being withdrawals and borrowals can be properly considered. As seen from the assessment order, there is no explanation that the amounts were borrowed from others, but, as rightly pointed out by the CIT(A), this contention was not supported by any evidence, as discussed in para 4.4. of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
