TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een added to the total income of the assessee. It is settled position of law that only unexplained deposit could be subjected to tax. If an assessee is able to demonstrate that he had deposited the amount earlier withdrawn from the same account, in that case, the AO would not be justified to subject both the credits to tax. Assessee in respect of other deposits could not give any satisfactory explanation, therefore we hereby direct the AO to make addition on the basis of the peak-credits. AO is directed to compute the peak-credits and make addition accordingly. Ground raised in the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnished before him. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have restricted the addition to the extent of peak credit. It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs.18.25 lakh made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 07/12/2010, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made addition of Rs.18,25,000/- on account of unexplained deposits in bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. Against the said assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awals of Rs.99,000 and Rs.45,000/- respectively. However, on 08/09/2007, the assessee has made payment to Ravji Stock Broking Ltd. a sum of Rs.4,3000/-. The assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.49,000/- each on 10th 11th September-2007. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that the entire amount ought not to have been added, at the most, the AO should have added the peak-credits. 3.1. On the contrary, the ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has rightly made the addition as the assessee failed to demonstrate the nexus between the cash withdrawn and cash deposited. Moreover, the assessee also failed to establish the source of cash deposits. 4. We have heard the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be taken as source of cash deposits in the bank account. Otherwise also, appellant has failed to furnish any documentary evidences to indicate that cash withdrawals from the bank was deposited back in the bank account. Normally, the cash is withdrawn from the bank for specific purpose and not for depositing the same back in the same account. In view of these facts, submissions made by the appellant is rejected and addition of Rs.18,25,000/- made by the A.O. u/s.68 of the I.T.Act is confirmed. These grounds of appeals are dismissed. 4.1. We find that both the authorities below have failed to appreciate the fact that on various occasions, the assessee has withdrawn from the same account and deposited in the bank after a week s time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
