TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as withdrawn by the assessee was utilized for any other purpose. Even if it is presumed that 1/3rd of such amount was utilized for house-hold expenses, still the assessee had 2/3rd of such amount. Therefore, Assessing officer was not justified in making the addition of the entire amount and the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in restricting the relief to the extent of 1/3rd of the total amount. Assessee appeal allowed. - ITA No. 758/DEL/2022 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2022 - SHRI KUL BHARAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee represented by : Shri Thangzamuan Hangshing Department represented by : Shri Sumesh Swani , Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT , JM : This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d circumstances of the case. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned assessment without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and without confronting the material, if any, to the appellant. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law for not considering duly filed response of show cause notice and documentary evidence of house property purchased. 9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234B. 10. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and made addition of the entire amount. Aggrieved against this the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby the learned CIT(Appeals0 deleted the addition to the extent of 1/3rd out of the withdrawals and rest of the addition was sustained. Aggrieved against this the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The assessee appeared in person and stated that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,96,500/- in his bank account out of the withdrawals made on earlier occasions. The assessee stated that the money was withdrawn for the purpose of making investment in house property. However, that could not be materialized. He contended that both the autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty and for household expenses. The total savings out of the cash withdrawals in old currency of Rs. 10,96,500/-was deposited in banks due to demonetization. The appellant has submitted the details of cash withdrawals in the last 3-4 years of Rs. 16,44,000/- as below (i) HDFC Bank Rs. 4,18,000/- (ii) Axis Bank Rs. 40,000/- (iii) State Bank of India Rs. (iv) Kotak Mahindra Bank Rs. 11,86,000/- Total: Rs. 16,44,000 The Assessing Officer concluded that no documentary evidence to prove the claim of purchase of house or any payment/expenses incurred related to purchase transaction was furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has not satisfied with the explanation of the Assessee and the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the cases of GovindarajuMadaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC), Kale Khan Mohomammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. S. Nelliapan (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC), CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) and AnantharamVeerasinghaiah Co v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) has applied the theory of telescoping keeping in view of the well-established canon of taxation that the same income cannot be taxed twice. Since the appellant is not required to maintain books of accounts, it is also not possible to prove, by way of matching each amount, that the total cash deposits of Rs. 10,96,500/- were savings out of the earlier cash withdrawals of Rs. 16,44,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by applying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
