9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. as unexplained investment in undisclosed bank account. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to peak amount of Rs.54,035/-and taken additional capital of Rs.25,000/- to carry on the undisclosed business instead of addition of Rs.11,89,200/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that onus was on assessee to substantiate that cash deposit was utilized in the purchase/sale of the business. No evidence in this regard was furnished before the A.O. neither it is clear from the order of the CIT(A) as what was the end result of alleged trading for want of supporting evidence for each and every ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the said account upon calling information u/s.133(6). 4. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.85,000/- by deleting the remaining addition of Rs.11,04,200/- by observing as under: 3.2 I have gone through the facts of the case. The claim of the appellant that the account belonged to the wife of the appellant is nothing but an afterthought. The account had been opened by the appellant, he was the first holder in the account, his PAN had been used to open the account and the evidences suggest that he operated the accounts. The returns of the wife have been filed after the undisclosed account was discovered by the Department and the appellant was put on notice. Even in these returns the peak in the account has been offered as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business transactions in the account would be Rs.84,460/- say Rs.85,000/-. The A.O. is directed to consider this instead of Rs.11,89,200/-." 5. The ld. D.R. relied heavily on the order of A.O. and submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of cash deposited into the bank account with ICICI Bank, which was also not shown in the balance sheet of the assessee. Ld. D.R. also drew our attention to the observation of the A.R. that the account has been opened by the assessee by using his PAN No. and the money was also withdrawn under his signature and thus, CIT(A) even accepted the finding of the A.O. to this extent. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in applying the concept of peak theory and requirement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
