TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the case, the capital gains and interest is to be computed in the hands of the HUF and not hands of the individual as held by the authorities below. As decided in case of ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah [ 1995 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT ] under the present Act, the Income Tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, tax the right person and the right person alone. By right person , we mean the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. The expression wrong person is obviously used as the opposite of the expression right person . Merely because a wrong person is taxed with respect to a particular income, the Assessing Officer is not precluded from taxing the right person with respect to that income. This is so irrespective of the fact which course is more beneficial to the Revenue. Accordingly, we remand these issues to the Ld.CIT(A) to be dealt with in accordance with law, without being prejudiced with the view already taken by the authorities below. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by all the assessee in the appeals filed before us stands allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand of one family member can explain the cash deposit in the hand of other family member. 2.2 The Ld.AO considered the arguments of the assessee and calculated the peak, after considering the cash deposits and cash withdrawals made by all the account holders in the above mentioned bank accounts of the family members and the bank account of the appellant. While calculating the peak credit of the family members, the following aspects were considered by the Ld.AO: a. The bank accounts of the appellant Shri K. Nagesh Reddy, Shri Jaipal Reddy, Shri Venkataswamy Reddy, Shri Ramesh Reddy and Smt. Radhika Reddy were clubbed to arrive at the peak credit. b. The cash withdrawn and the cash deposited by the account holders was merged date-wise. c. The cash withdrawn by the account holder is considered as the cash available with the family members for any deposits made by them subsequently. d. The cash withdrawn by persons other than the account holders was not considered as cash available with the family members since there was no evidence to show that the cash withdrawn by others was actually handed over to the account holders. e. Thus, the peak credit was arrived at afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and requested to consider the withdrawal made through these persons as the cash available on hand. 4.12 The assessee had not produced any evidence to show that the money withdrawn by the above persons were handed over to the assessee. Normally in the transaction involving withdrawal of huge cash from the bank, the job is entrusted to a single person who is trust worthy. In the instant case, several people were withdrawing the cash from the bank. The assessee did not produce any evidence to show that these persons were employed with him. Further, if the money has been withdrawn by the so called employees, nothing prevented the assessee from giving the details like address, etc and producing them before the undersigned for verification. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the money withdrawn from the bank by the persons other than the assessee should also be considered as cash available on hand is rejected. Thus, the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of the cash credits to the extent of ₹ 88,50,000/- in the bank account is not satisfactory. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). After observing the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh High Court in case of CIT vs. Babulal Nim reported in [1963] 47 ITR 864 (MP) ii) decision of Hon ble Chennai Tribunal in case of Kanniappan Murugadoss vs. ITO reported in [2017] 79 taxmann.com 244 (Chennai-Trib.) 4.2 The Ld.CIT.DR submitted that sufficient time was avalabl to assessee during the assessment proceedings however, the same was not provided. He submitted that the assessee was unable to link the cash withdrawn from the bank with the cash deposits and therefore the addition is justified. 5. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5.1 The first issue that needs to be considered is whether the additional evidence filed by the Ld.AR today deserves to be admitted or not. In order to admit the additional evidence, as per Rule 29 of IT Rules, certain criteria needs to be satisfied. The primary requirement is, whether sufficient opportunity was granted to assessee for producing these evidences before the authorities below. 5.2 We note that the assessment order is dated 27.03.2015. Assessee was issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 01.12.2014. Assessee filed various details and replied on 11.12.2014 There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yer has been raised by the Ld.AR by filing additional evidences being confirmations and identity proofs by the parties who have withdrawn cash from respective accounts. We are admitting all these documents and remand with identical directions as given in case of Shri K. Nagesh Reddy hereinabove. 8. For Assessment Year 2008-09, we note that there is an additional issue raised by assessee in ITA No. 1538/Bang/2016 in case of Shri Nagesh Reddy that reads as under. 5. The Learned Assessing Officer has also not considered the revised return filed u/s 139(5) for the return filed u/s 153A of the act. 6. That on the facts and Circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the cash deposits and Bank Interest Income of Krishna Reddy HUF treating it as personal income of the Appellant. 8.1 It is submitted by Ld.AR that assessee filed revised return declaring interest income of ₹ 4,48,957/-. Subsequently another return was field on 18.02.2015 declaring interest income of ₹ 2,366/- and stated that the bank account No. 2015023 with Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Koramangala branch does not belong to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
