9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 21-08-2015 and the same amount was returned in cash and deposited into the Bank on 15-11-2016. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. 51,000/- plus Rs. 24,000/-) which partly forms a part of total deposit of Rs. 15,36,000/- without appreciating the fact that the said amount was savings out of the household expenses and the same was deposited on 02-12-2016 amounting to Rs. 51,000/- and on 12-12-2016 amounting to Rs. 24,000/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the additional ground of Appeal relating to a Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dtd: 12-09-2018 said to have been served in 24-09-2018 was not digitally signed as per CBDT Instruction No. 172018 dtd: 12-02-2018 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,36,000/- holding that the appellant has not able to show similar turnover of Transportation business either earlier or later without appreciating the fact that the Assessee has not tarried out any business and therefore the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) was based on misguided and misunderstood opinion and the AO has clearly held in para 3.2 of the Assessment Order that the Assessee has not involved in any busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence and it was said to be an intentional act of the Assessee and therefore rejected the explanation in respect of a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- and 5,50,000/-. However, the ld. AO has not rejected the explanation of the Assessee in respect of other cash deposits of Rs. 86,000/-. Therefore, the ld. AO was not justified to hold the entire sum of Rs. 15,36,000/- as income including a sum of Rs. 86,000/- for which explanation was not rejected. He submitted that the assessee had enough cash balance of Rs. 18,24,219/-as on 05-07-2016 with Kotak Mahindra Bank out of which cash of Rs. 9,00,000/- was withdrawn on 08-07-2016 with an intention to make further advance for purchase of immovable property. However, the deal was not materialised in view of defective title of the property and therefore the cash held on hand was re-deposited into the Bank on 12-11-2016 solely for the reason of demonetization restrictions. He submitted that after the broken relationship with the estranged husband, she has been staying with her father. The Assessee for all her financial transactions depends upon the guidance of the Father Sri. Nandakumar who has made arrangements to purchase an immovable property in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that assessee has not given proper evidence to substantiate his claim of withdrawal of Rs. 9 lakhs and the purpose for which the amount was withdrawn and could not establish that the same has been redeposited into the bank account. 4.1 With regard to the cheque issued by Rs. 5.5 lakhs to a person on 21.8.2015 and money received in instalment on various dates, assessee has not established the claim for which the cheque was issued, the details of return of income filed by other person. In view of the absence of proper explanation, the addition was made by lower authorities and the same is to be sustained and he also relied on the order of this Bench in case of Afrozkhan in ITA No. 830/Bang/2023 dated 5.12.2023 and also the order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Mohammed Sharaq in ITA No.1818/Bang/2019 dated 7.4.2021. 5. I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 15.36 lakhs and the first deposit of Rs. 11,000/- on 11.11.2016 is out of opening balance and that cannot be considered as unexplained income of the assessee and credit to be given to that extent. Next amount of deposit was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessee. The legal position in this regard is that if the deposit of money in the bank account is preceded by withdrawal of money from the very same bank account, then the source of funds is prima facie demonstrated or explained by the Assessee. The Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Ventakaratnam Vs CIT, Karnataka-I & Others 127 ITR 807 has held that once the Assessee discloses the source as having come from the withdrawals made on a given date from a given bank, it was not open to the revenue to examine as to what the Assessee did with that money and cannot chose to disbelieve the plea of the Assessee merely on the surmise that it would not be probable for the Assessee to keep the money unutilized. The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court supports the plea of the assessee. It is seen that the cash deposits in the bank account are preceded by withdrawal from the very same bank account. I am of the view that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment will apply to the facts of the present case. If the revenue wants to disbelieve the plea of the Assessee then it must show that the previous withdrawal of cash would not have been available with the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, there was a defect in title and amount has been returned by Shri Maruthi Reddy and it was used for redepositing the same to the assessee's bank account. This plea of the assessee was not verified by the lower authorities and outrightly they made addition by disbelieving it. In my opinion, it is incumbent upon the authorities to carry out necessary enquiry when assessee has made a statement that assessee has received the said amount from other party namely Shri Maruthi Reddy by way of refund of purchase advance given to him. In the present case, the lower authorities without carrying out any enquiry, made additions which is inappropriate. As held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs. CIT reported in 127 ITR 807, the ld. AO has not made any exercise to disbelieve the version of the assessee about the redepositing of amount out of the earlier withdrawal and also the ld. AO was required to disprove that the amount withdrawn earlier was not the amount redeposited. In the present case, when the assessee has taken a plea that it was the amount received from Mr. Maruthi Reddy, which was earlier advanced to him to purchase a property and that has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
