TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant by Ms. RaginiHanda, CA For the Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi, dated 18-06-2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeals ( Ld.CIT(A) ) is erroneous and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause to explain the source of such deposit. In response thereto the assessee stated that the cash was deposited out of cash withdrawal made by him during the year under consideration. In support of it the assessee submitted copy of savings bank account. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved against it, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering the submissions, sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Learned Authorized Representative of the assessee vehemently argued that the authorities below are not just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and others applies wherein it was held that Moreover as held by the learned CIT(A) the withdrawals have been found to be subsequently redeposited after a gap of two or three months which is not probable. The assessee therefore upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) treating the cash deposit of Rs. 14,20,212/- as unexplained income of the assessee . Therefore entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- deposited in cash by assessee during the F.Y. 2015-16 is treated as unaccounted money/unexplained income of the assessee and added back to the income of the assessee. 9. Further, it is seen that the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal by observing as under: 5.1. I have considered the facts of the grounds. Contention of the AR of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and redeposited. Mere stating that the amount was out of the cash withdrawals made from the same bank account does not prove the amount to be unaccounted. Even during the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant continued to stress on the fact that it was out of the earlier withdrawals and it ws the same money which was withdrawn by it. No supporting documents or evidence which could have controverted the finding of the AO was produced by the appellant. In view of the factual matrix of the case, amount remains unaccounted for and is held to be unexplained income of the appellant. The appellant fails in these grounds of appeal. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions for the parties and the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
