TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 793X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ld. AR in the case of Intezar Ali ( 2013 (8) TMI 704 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is distinguishable because the witnesses to the sale deed have deposed before the AO and Bank Manager of the assessee has confirmed that the cash was received by him against the sale made by the assessee. Since the Ld. AR could not provide any cogent evidences with respect to receipt of on money the same cannot be accepted. The argument of the Ld. DR that the purchaser has denied any payment of cash confirms that no on money was paid for the sale of agricultural land. In view of the above discussions, we find that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the same and we uphold the order of the Ld.AO on this ground. With reference to the cash deposits during the demonetization period - It is observed from the order of the Ld.AO that the AO has admitted that the cash has been withdrawn by the assessee from his own bank account and deposited the same into the same bank accounts. In such situation it can be said that the fact of withdrawals of cash was not disputed by the Revenue. Only what has to be considered is the purpose of withdrawal. The assessee from the assessment until its appeal before us has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3,16,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee through his representative, filed details as required by the AO. Based on the submissions made by the assessee s representative, the Ld. AO concluded that the assessee has received excess cash of Rs. 92,47,500/- and has deposited the same into the bank account which is a joint account along with his daughter. The Ld. AO treated these cash credits as unexplained money in terms of provisions of section 69A of the Act and accordingly proposed to assessee the same U/s. 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. AO also noticed that cash deposits of Rs. 1.65 Crores during the period of demonetization in the bank account of the assessee and concluded that since the assessee failed to establish the sources of cash deposits, the same was treated as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69A and accordingly assessed to tax U/s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad. The assessee has raised certain additional grounds also before the Ld. CIT(A) whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawals earlier made by the assessee or his relatives from his bank accounts without appreciating the fact that no evidence was produced by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in support of his contention that cash withdrawals were made for the intended purchase of property and since it did not materialize the cash was redeposited in the bank account. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that cash withdrawals made were made for the purpose of investment in lands as probability without appreciating the fact that the assessee has been indulging in cash withdrawals even though there was no utilization of the cash withdrawn earlier and therefore the cash flow statement furnished by the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 1,65,00,000 post demonetization was wholly unreliable. 4. The Ld. DR argued that there is a delay of 184 days and it is covered by COVID period and hence pleaded for condonation of delay. As per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in SMW(A) No.3 of 2020, the period of limitation for filing the appeals under general laws and all s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the declared income of the assessee while filing the return of income. In the absence of any of the finding by AO, apart from the declared income there is no source for the assessee to earn a huge amount in his brief stay in India which is for the purpose of the registration of the sale deed. The Ld. AR therefore vehemently argued that the amount of Rs. Rs. 92,47,500/- is on money transaction for the sale of agricultural land only and hence section 69A cannot be invoked. The Ld. AR referred to the case CIT vs. Intezar Ali [2015] 372 ITR 651 (All). The Ld. AR also relied on various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal as detailed in the paper book. 8. The Ld. AR on the issue of depositing cash of Rs.1.65 Crs into the bank account of the assessee submitted that the assessee had withdrawn this amount from his NRO account maintained with SBH and Kotak Mahindra Bank for the purpose of acquiring agricultural land in Amaravathi area. Since the land could not be identified and consequent to announcement of demonetization the assessee had no option but to deposit the amount withdrawn into the same bank account of the assessee. The Ld. AR also pleaded that there was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the sale made by the assessee. Since the Ld. AR could not provide any cogent evidences with respect to receipt of on money the same cannot be accepted. The argument of the Ld. DR that the purchaser has denied any payment of cash confirms that no on money was paid for the sale of agricultural land. In view of the above discussions, we find that the Ld. AO has rightly disallowed the same and we uphold the order of the Ld.AO on this ground. 11. With reference to the cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 1.65 Crs, we find from para 10.2 of the order of the Ld. AO that the assessee has withdrawn from his NRO account a sum of Rs. 1.70 Crores as detailed below: 10.2. The sources for the above deposits were claimed to have been out of the cash in hand available as on the date of deposits which got accumulated from cash withdrawals made from NRE account (740010192533) held with Kotak Mahendra and SB Account (62140567829) held with SBH during the period from 1/9/2016 to 17/10/2016. SBH Account No. 62140567829 Date of withdrawal Amount (Rs.) 1/9/2016 9,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee has withdrawn the cash without being insisted by any one for cash payment. The AO further observed that the payment of sale consideration would available only after conclusion of terms and conditions and the withdrawals by the assessee and his relatives and keeping huge accumulated cash on hand could not be accepted. It is observed from the order of the Ld.AO that the AO has admitted that the cash has been withdrawn by the assessee from his own bank account and deposited the same into the same bank accounts. In such situation it can be said that the fact of withdrawals of cash was not disputed by the Revenue. Only what has to be considered is the purpose of withdrawal. The assessee from the assessment until its appeal before us has been consistently claiming that the amount was withdrawn for purchasing of some land and consequent to announcement of demonetization the amount was again redeposited in the bank account by the assessee. But no documentary evidences were produced by the assessee to substantiate the same. The AO as well as the Ld. DR speak about the human probabilities of holding such huge cash. We also observe from the assessment order that the Ld. AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
