TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. 1 2 of the assessee s appeal are rejected. Addition u/s 69A - Unexplained cash deposits - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) has failed to advert to the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposit. The learned CIT(Appeals) being the first appellate authority ought to have considered the submissions of the assessee regarding source of cash deposit. Before me the assessee has filed bank statement. There from, it is clear that there were cash withdrawals as well as cash deposits. Before the assessing authority the assessee has categorically stated that he had withdrawn cash of Rs. 8,25,900/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- was cash receipt during the year under consideration. Further the assessee has also claimed cash in hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order passed by Ld. CIT (A), in concurring with order of Ld. AO is bad in law. illegal. Perverse and against the facts and circumstances of present case, statutory provisions, established principles of law and principles of natural justice and thus need to | be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law the Ld. CIT(A) 1 has failed to appreciate that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 is illegal and bad in law and consequently the assessment framed being illegal requires to be quashed. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act and a sum of Rs. 5,81,000/- was added on account of unexplained expenditure. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs. 19,37,190/- against the income declared at Rs. 2,84,190/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(Appeals), who also after considering the material available on record dismissed the appeal and sustained the addition. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground nos. 1 2 are against legality of the reopening of the assessment. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the reopening is wholly illegal and unjustified on account of the fact that the basis of reopening was that assessee did not file return of income. However, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. Ground nos. 1 2 of the assessee s appeal are rejected. 7. Ground nos. 2.1 to 2.4 are against sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,72,000/- and Rs. 5,81,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 69A and 69C of the Act respectively. 8. Apropos to addition of Rs. 10,72,000/- the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below have not considered the fact in right perspective. The authorities below have not given set off of the opening balance and the cash withdrawn from the bank account. He further contended that before the learned CIT(Appeals) it was categorically stated that the assessee had withdrawals from his bank account and this amount was subsequently deposited. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s noticed from The order of the AO in para 4.4 to 4.8, that the AO had duly considered the explanations furnished by the AR but the evidences furnished by the assessee were not found to be satisfactory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation tendered by the AR, the order of the AO appears to be reasonable and accordingly the addition of Rs. 10,72,000/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed. 11. From the above finding it is clear that the learned CIT(Appeals) has failed to advert to the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposit. The learned CIT(Appeals) being the first appellate authority ought to have considered the submissions of the assessee regarding source of cash deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not readily available with the assessee being 8-9 years old. The time was short for furnishing the same. He contended that when the documents were made available some were filed before the learned CIT(Appeals) but the learned CIT(Appeals) did not consider the same. Under these facts he contended that gross miscarriage of justice has been caused to the assessee. 14. On the contrary learned DR heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below. He contended that assessee was required to explain the source of expenditure as incurred by him. 15. I have heard the learned representatives of the parties. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has decided the issue by observing as under: 4.2 The next issue is regarding the addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
