TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7.00 lacs and thus should have been given credit of Rs. 7.00 lacs to explain the cash peak deposit balance of Rs. 15.25 lacs. Thus, we delete the addition of Rs. 3.75 lacs confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of opening cash in hand of the assessee. Thus, the A.O. is directed accordingly. Unexplained cash deposit - As assessee had duly discharged his onus of proving the deposit of Rs. 12.50 lacs in the bank account as he has categorically submitted that the assessee had received the said amount from Shri Gaurav Singh S/o Shri Vijaypal Singh Tanwar Banethi towards sale of his plot to the said purchaser and the A.O. had not even enquired or carried out any enquiry with regard to factum of said categorical stand taken by the assessee by calling or recording the statement of Shri Gaurav Singh S/o Shri Vijaypal Singh Tanwar Banethi. Thus, stand taken by the assessee went unrebutted as the A.O. who is investigator has failed to carry out any investigation to disprove the categorical stand taken by the assessee supported by documents. Thus, said amount of Rs. 12.50 lacs deposited by the assessee in the bank account cannot be termed as unexplained rather the assessee has duly p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition. In this regard, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A) and the contents of the same are reproduced as under: Your honour Ld AO has made the additions of Rs. 19,50,000/- on a/c of deposits made in ICICI Bank a/c no. 023501530955 during the F.Y. 2012-13. Ld AO rejected the explanation filed by assessee without making any independent enquiry and without considering the track record of the assessee. Your honour at the very outset, we would like your kind attention on the copy of alleged bank a/c. Your honour the maximum peak balance in the account is Rs. 19,10,016.64/- on dated 18/06/2012. It is also verifiable from the bank a/c itself that the assessee has made several cash deposits and several cash withdrawal from the said bank account. Your honour it is also on the record that the above referred peak balance includes the opening balance at bank of Rs. 3,85,016.64/-. If we prepare an account of cash withdrawals and cash deposit till 18/06/2012 i.e. the day on which there was maximum peak balance the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived on 13/06/2012. This agreement was not registered, and was also cancelled later. Ld AO rejected the explanation of assessee wrongly without making any enquiry from the buyer despite having complete address. It is therefore submitted that the source of deposit should have been accepted by Ld AO. Your honour it is also submitted that this addition has wrongly been made for Rs. 19,50,000/-. The maximum cash requirement to maintain the deposited balance in above bank a/c was Rs. 15,25,000/- only and the assessee has explained the source of deposits which Ld AO rejected on surmises and conjectures. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that on the basis of the material placed on record, the ld. CIT(A) had given part relief to the assessee. 7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. From perusal of the record, we noticed that the A.O had made additions of Rs. 19,50,000/- on account of deposits made in ICICI Bank a/c no. 023501530955 during the F.Y. 2012-13 and at the same time, the AO rejected the explanation filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and had deleted the additions to the tune of Rs. 3.25 lacs by holding that a sum of Rs. 3.25 lacs out of opening account is treated as explained. However, the ld. CIT(A) made addition of Rs. 3,75 lacs, in this regard, the ld. AR has specifically submitted that while making additions of Rs. 3.75 lacs, the lower authorities were under misconception as the lower authorities had categorically mentioned that the assessee had not declared any cash in hand in his tax returns. It was specifically submitted that the assessee was not required to declare any cash in hand in his personal income tax return and there is no such requirement under the I.T. Act. As the assessee is to declare the cash of business only and there is no requirement to declare personal cash balance in the hands of the assessee. It was further submitted that the assessee was having Rs. 3,74,500/- in cash out of his saving from his profession as a lawyer. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee in a young lawyer and we cannot lose sight of the fact that a practicing lawyer have income in cash also, therefore, considering the background of the assessee, it can be very well presume that since the assessee is in the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
