9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1010X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirming the addition of Rs. 11,00,000 made to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposit in bank account by treating it as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case even when the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings categorically explained that the said amount of cash deposits were made out of cash withdrawn on prior occasions. (iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in computing the amounting of tax liability by invoking the amended provision of section 115BBE of Income-tax Act, 1961, even cash deposit was made in bank account prior to 15.1.2016 i.e. prior to the date of obtaining assent from the President of India and hence, in any case, amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case." 2. The background facts are such that from ITBA-NMS-Information, the AO came to know that the assessee deposited a cash of Rs. 11,00,000/- in PNB A/c No. 9849002100000797 during demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 falling within the previous year 2016-17 rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has made an explanation that the cash withdrawal was held for personal purpose, it was not open to revenue to contend that the assessee has to explain as to how and why the cash was withdrawn earlier, why it was not utilized and why it was available with assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the facts of assessee's case are squarely covered by a direct decision of ITAT Bangalore in I.T.A. No. 360/BANG/20-22 Shri Girigowda Dasegowda Vs. ITO which is a case for identical addition made by revenue authorities. Ultimately, the ITAT accepted identical claim of assessee and allowed relief to assessee, the relevant paras of order are reproduced below :- "6. The limited prayer of the learned Counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal was that there were substantial withdrawals prior to 06.04.2015 and 21.05.2015 respectively from the two bank accounts and the CIT(A) erred in not giving credit to these withdrawals on the ground that these withdrawals were at a time which was more than 2 years from the date of deposit. The learned Counsel for the assessee in this regard placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. P. Padmavathi Vs. The ITO I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should have given an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his assertion as to the source of the capital outlay." 12. In this case, it is not in dispute that the assessee withdrew a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 18.8.2003 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.8.2003 from her savings account. She is an agriculturist and she had agricultural income. Once she demonstrated that she was in possession of Rs. 7,00,000/- cash plus agricultural income on her hands, if after 40 days, a cash deposit is made to the extent of about Rs. 5,20,000/- towards loan account, it cannot be said that the source of the said deposit is not properly explained. Merely because there is a delay of 40 days from the date of withdrawal of the money from the bank account to the date of deposit in the loan account. Once money is shown to be in the account and withdrawn, what the assessee did with that money till it was actually deposited, is not the concern of the Department. As long as the source is explained and established and when the money is withdrawn from a savings bank account and paid to discharge loan by deposit into a loan account, it is not possible to hold that the source is not explained. In that interregnum p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so of the view that a reasonable quantum of cash available out of past savings should also be considered as being available to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account. 10. I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the case to the AO to consider the issue de novo in the light of the observations as made above. 11. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose." 4. Ld. AR submitted that in the aforesaid decision of ITAT, Bangalore it has been categorically held that the past withdrawals should be considered as being available to assessee to explain the source of deposits. Therefore, in present case of assessee also, the previous withdrawal from bank a/c must be accepted as source of subsequent re-deposit. Ld. AR went on submitting that in the aforesaid decision, the ITAT, Bangalore has ultimately remanded the matter to AO for the reason that besides previous withdrawal from Bank A/c, the assessee was also claiming a reasonable amount of past savings as source for re-deposit because previous withdrawal was not sufficient. But in present case of assessee, the previous withdrawal was Rs. 15, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
