TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee had given date wise details of cash deposits together with the respective source before the lower authorities. These facts are not properly appreciated by the lower authorities while adjudicating the issue in dispute. We also find from the audited balance sheet of Yash Impex as on 31.03.2012, on the asset side, a sum was shown under the head current asset as Surendra Kumar Gupta imprest. All these facts collectively could prove indeed have sufficient cash balance which explained the cash deposit made in the bank account. Hence, there is absolutely no case for making any addition on account of cash deposits in the hands of the assessee. Hence, we direct the ld AO to delete the addition made in the sum on account of cash deposit. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice assessee filed his return of income on 06.04.2015 declaring taxable income of Rs. 5,11,190/-. During the assessment proceedings it was observed by the ld AO that assessee had deposited cash on various dates in his bank account. The ld AO also observed that the assessee has been making cash deposit in his bank account for various years in the past and tabulated the same in the assessment order. The ld AO asked for explanation of the source of the cash deposited to the assessee. The assessee stated that the entire cash deposits were made out of cash balance available with him. The assessee also submitted that he maintained a current account vide A/c No. 02722320000359 with HDFC Bank for the business activity of M/s. Yash Impex. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the ld AO. We find that assessee had furnished the copy of the imprest account of Surendra Kumar Gupta (assessee) as appeared in the books of account of Yash Impex for the period of 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 in pages 15 of the PB. From the same it is noticed that the assessee had indeed opening cash balance of Rs. 2,08,40,782/- as on 01.04.2012 and had made withdrawals during the year to the tune of Rs. 1,30,67716/- from HDFC Bank on the following dates :- 03.04.2012 16,50,000 07.04.2012 70,00,000 18.04.2012 10,00,000 21.04.2012 33,270 21.04.2012 34,446 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee are challenging the validity of assumption u/s 153A of the Act. No arguments were advanced by the ld counsel for the assessee before us. Hence, they are dismissed as not pressed. 9. Ground No. 5 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 6922/Del/2017 in quantum proceedings is partly allowed. 11. Since, the quantum appeal is decided in favour of the assessee on merits, concealment penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is subject matter of appeal in ITA No. 8733/Del/2019 would have no legs to stand, hence, the penalty levied in the sum of Rs. 21,21,500/- is hereby directed to be deleted. 12. To sum up the appeal of the assessee in IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
