Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (1) TMI 520

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the assessee has raised the following grounds: "On the facts and in law, 1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,00,000/-, made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act 1961, as unexplained money on account of cash deposited in the bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mumbai when the source of such cash deposit was from opening cash in hand and withdrawals from bank accounts of the appellant, all of which stood well explained with supporting evidences and therefore the addition as unexplained money was not justified and bears to be deleted. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal." 3. The only grievance of the assessee is aga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder section 143(3) of the Act made the addition of Rs.6 lakh under section 69A of the Act. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under: "5. The details and submission of the assessee was perused but found not satisfactory or the following reasons: a) The assessee has not provided the source and documentary evidence in respect of actual opening cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 at Rs.4,96,031/-. b) The Income offered by the assessee during the this year and last year is mainly professional Income, Salary Income and interest income. All these incomes are credited in Bank and even TDS is deducted. The same can be verified from 26AS submitted by the assessee. When the income is through bank the assessee has not proved from wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rove the nature and source of cash deposited during the demonetization period. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ('learned AR') submitted that the cash of Rs.6 lakh was deposited out of Rs.1 lakh withdrawn on 18/10/2016, from the Kotak Mahindra Bank, Rs.40,000, withdrawn on various dates from the HDFC Bank and Rs.4,96,031, opening cash in hand for the year under consideration. The learned AR further submitted that the opening cash in hand of Rs.4,96,031, which is carried forward from the preceding year, was declared by the assessee in its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 and the same has been accepted by the Revenue. The learned AR further subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mission of the assessee that Rs.1 lakh was withdrawn in cash by the assessee from its bank account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank on 18/10/2016 and Rs. 40,000, has been withdrawn in cash on various dates from its bank account maintained with HDFC Bank is duly corroborated from the copy of bank statements of Kotak Mahindra Bank and HDFC Bank, forming part of the paper book from pages 9-20. 10. From the copy of the bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, we find that assessee had deposited Rs.6 lakh in cash in 600 old currency notes of Rs. 1000 denomination on 01/12/2016. At a glance, it may appear that since the assessee had sufficient cash in hand amounting to Rs. 6,36,031, therefore, the aforesaid deposit of cash would have been made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessee on 01/12/2016. As noted above, as per the cash book, the opening balance as on 01/11/2016 was only Rs.5,25,114. Since the assessee had deposited Rs.6 lakh in cash in 600 old currency notes of Rs. 1,000, denomination on 01/12/2016, therefore, we are of the considered view that the source of deposit of only Rs.5,25,114, in old currency notes can be said to have been satisfactorily explained by the assessee. Therefore, to this extent, the AO is directed to delete the addition. As regards the balance amount of Rs.74,886, the assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation and thus, the addition is upheld to an extent of Rs.74,886. Accordingly, the sole ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates