TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o wrong in contending that since the assessee is not filing her wealth tax returns regularly, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting that the assessee maintains personal books of account and draws personal balance sheet. Here, it needs to be reiterated that it is the department itself, which has accepted the balance sheets drawn by the assessee in her personal capacity and that for the assessment yea₹ 2007-08 to 2011-12, in the wealth tax cases of the assessee, the wealth tax returns filed by the assessee were based on the personal balance sheets of the assessee and it was the same AO who accepted the cash in hand, which was as per the balance sheet of the assessee, for wealth tax purposes. No material has been brought on record by the Department to contradict the well reasoned findings of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No.61(Asr)/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2016 - SH. A.D. JAIN AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, JJ. Appellant by: Sh.Bhawani Shanker, DR Respondent by: Sh.Padam Bahl, CA ORDER A.D. JAIN, J. This is the Revenue s appeal for the assessment year 2011-12, against the order dated 12.10.2015, passed by the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he year ending 31.03.2010. However, since the assessee was not doing any business, the AO held that the question of maintenance of cash book did not arise in the case of the assessee. The AO further observed that the assessee made deposit in the bank only when she was ready to give some advance to a person. The AO held that the claim of cash lying at the residence was not reliable, when she maintained various bank accounts and could earn handsome interest income. 3. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 4. The ld. DR has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- on account of cash deposited by the assessee in her savings bank account maintained with Indusind Bank. He further stated that the CIT(A) erred in giving the credit of cash withdrawn from the bank a long period back and kept by the assessee with her, on which, dispute had arisen. The assessee, as per the ld. DR, had also not disclosed the purpose of withdrawal of cash from bank and usage thereof. The ld. DR further stated that the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in accepting that the assessee maintains personal books of account and draws personal balance sheet, whereas the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and regularly filed. The assessee submitted the copies of her balance sheets for A Y 2003-04 to 2010-11 and the copies of acknowledgements of returns for AY 2003- 04 to 2006-07 to show that the balance sheets were also filed with the department upto A Y 2006-07. The appellant stated that she had cash in hand of ₹ 1,31,11,293/- on 31-03-2010 in her balance sheet and that the deposit of ₹ 50,00,000/- during A Y 2011-12 came out of that cash in hand on 31-03-2010. The assessee produced the copy of cash book for the F Y 2010-11. The AO had however rejected the explanation of the assessee by saying that the balance sheet and cash book was a concocted story and rejected the evidences filed by the assessee. The explanation of the assessee was that the cash was withdrawn by her for land deal which did not materialize and she deposited the cash withdrawn from the same bank account back in the bank after a gap of nearly 17 to 18 months. The AO had led no evidence to show that the cash withdrawn by her had been spent and was not available for re-deposit. The appellant relied upon the following decisions in support of her argument against the addition a) Decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and was therefore not available with her as on 31-03-2010. In view of the various decisions of Hon ble High Court and ITAT, Amritsar cited by the appellant (Supra), the benefit of cash withdrawal made by the assessee from her account in Indusind bank in all these years therefore cannot be denied. Accordingly the cash in hand at ₹ 131,11,293/- as on 01-04-2010 reflected in the cash book and the balance sheet as on 31-03-2010 is upheld. The copies of the personal balance sheets made by the appellant from AY 2003-04 to 2011-12 were perused. The Balance sheet of the appellant as on 31-03-2010 reveals cashin-hand of ₹ 131,11,293/-. The cases of the Assessee was reopened by the AO for A Y 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 by issue of notices u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act. In response to the notices issued u/s 17 of the W T Act, the Wealth Tax Returns were submitted by the assessee for all these years and the assessments were completed u/s 16(3) /17 of W T Act vide order dated 30-03-2015. The assessment of A Y 2010- 11 was completed u/s 16(3)/l of W T Act at the Net wealth declared in the return at ₹ 51,64,100/-. The copy of Net wealth computation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e derives income from agriculture and from other sources. She owns agriculture land. She received advance against sale of agriculture land, amounting to ₹ 62,00,000/- on 9.12.2005 and 16.12.2005 from M/s. D.D. Industries. Later, she received a sum of ₹ 70,48,112/- and ₹ 30,00,000/- on 15.03.2008 and 10.06.2008, respectively, having entered into an agreement to sell with DVM Realtors Pvt. Ltd., (Bhargava Builders Pvt. Ltd.). This was concerning land measuring 177 Kanals 6 Marlas situated in village Meharbanpura, Tehsil and Distt. Amritsar, with regard to a suit for mandatory injunction with consequential relief of possession, i.e., with regard to a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 15.03.2008. The assessee filed copies of the concerned bank accounts for the relevant period. The credit of the aforesaid amounts was from these accounts. The fact that the assessee maintains personal books of account and draws her personal balance sheet, though taken by the A.O. to be false, gets substantiated by the fact that the A.O. was filing her return of income regularly from assessment year 1995-96. So much so, she had filed her personal balance sheets from assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has correctly observed that the department cannot maintain two diverse standards, i.e., one for Wealth tax purposes, and another diametrically opposite stand for Income tax purposes. It also requires to be pointed out that the amount of ₹ 1,31,11,293/- was generated by the assessee from year to year out of cash withdrawals from her own bank account. It is stood reflected in the assessee s cash book for the F.Ys. 2005-06 to 2009-10. On the other hand, the AO did not bring any positive evidence on record to prove that any of the cash withdrawals made by the assessee from her account in any of the years concerned, had been invested by her or spent by her elsewhere. That being so, the AO was not justified in basing the addition on the merely sceptic observation that that the assessee could not have kept the cash amount with her for 17- 18 months. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of the cash withdrawals. 9. The ld. CIT(A) has also based his finding on his having gone through the assessee s personal balance sheets from assessment years 2003-04 to 2011-12. From the assessee s computation of net wealth for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
