9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the Worthy CIT (A) vide Para 3 of his order, has erred in confirming addition made by Ld. AO wherein he had erred in making addition of Rs.7,50,000/- by erroneously holding that the cash deposit in bank is undisclosed income of the appellant on following grounds : 2.1 That the above addition is erroneous since the source of cash deposit was duly explained. 2.2 That the cash deposit in bank is out of withdrawls from the same bank account of the appellant. 2.3 That the addition made, without finding out any utilization of withdrawl of cash, is illegal. 2.4 That the above addition is against the provisions of law and facts." 4. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.7,60,000/- for the reasons stated in para 2, 3 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "1. First of all, it is clarified that the transactions in question total to Rs.7,50,000/- instead of Rs.7,60,000/- as totaled by Ld. A.O. as the 1st transaction is actually for Rs.50,000/- dated 30.06.2006 instead of Rs.60,000/- on 30.03.2006. 2. The appellant had deposited a total amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash on 6 different dates in his saving bank account. The details are as under :- Date Name of Bank Amount(Rs.) a. 30.06.2006 HDFC Bank 50,000/- b. 06.07.2006 HDFC Bank 1,00,000/- c. 09.08.2006 HDFC Bank 75,000/- d. 10.08.2006 HDFC Bank 25,000/- e. 19.05.2006 SBOP 3,00,000/- f. 30.06.2006 SBOP 2,00,000/- Total 7,50,000/- 3. The above cash deposit in the bank account cane out from w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (Appeals) allowed a relief of Rs.10,000/- stating that the contentions of the assessee that first deposit was of Rs.50,000/- dated 30.6.2006 instead of Rs.60,000/- on 30.3.2006 was correct. However, the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.7,50,000/- stating that the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits of Rs.7,50,000/- made by him were out of withdrawal of similar amount on 27.1.2006 from HDFC bank was far from reality and not acceptable. 9. Now, the assessee is in appeal against the addition of Rs.7,50,000/- sustained by the CIT (Appeals). 10. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. During the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the bank account, deserves to be accepted, particularly when the assessee's source of income is only the income from house property i.e. rental income. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case we hold that the assessee has satisfactorily proved the source of deposits made in the bank account and, therefore, there is no justification in making the impugned addition. We may also add here that both the authorities below had treated the amount in question as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In fact, they have not given any cogent reason regarding the addition. We, therefore, delete the addition and allow the appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
