9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act after obtaining prior approval of the Pr. CIT of Income-tax, Karnal. The AO observed that section148 notice was returned back due to incomplete address. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the assessee to furnish ITR for assessment year 2011-12, details of bank accounts along with statements thereof and source of cash deposits with the supporting evidences. Since no compliance from the assessee's side AO issued 144 notice. Since no response from the assessee's side was received AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act and added the cash deposit of Rs. 17,82,000/- as income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant for initiation of proceedings u/1 148. 3. That the ld. Commission of Income tax (appeal) erred in law in passing the order as the ITR filed by the appellant has not been considered while framing the assessment. 4. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,57,996.00 as the deposit has been made out of cash withdrawal. 5. That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law in covering the deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the reasons recorded by the A.O. are against fats as no notice has been taken of returned filed by the assessee on 11.07.2011 resulting in initiating proceedings u/s 148 bad in law." 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.00 49,000.00 12-Nov-10 100,000.00 13-Nov-10 220,000.00 15-Nov-10 49,000.00 3-Dec-10 49,000.00 8-Dec-10 49,000.00 19-Feb-11 49,000.00 22-Feb-11 49,000.00 23-Feb-11 49,000.00 1-Mar-11 49,000.00 3-Mar-11 2,000.00 3-Mar-11 50,000.00 3-Mar-11 40,000.00 4-Mar-11 350,000.00 15-Mar-11 TOTAL 2,000,000.00 17,82,000.00 PB 2-4 is the copy of detailed written submission before Ld. CIT(A) wherein assessee explained that cash deposit in bank is from cash withdrawn from his bank account in October 2010, detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k credit of Rs. 14,57,996/- for the appellant. This credit entry that resulted in the balance from which the chain of deposits and withdrawals started is not explained. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that assessee has explained the source of cash which are being withdrawn from the bank as mentioned at PB 3-4 of written submission and herein also. Further, it is stated that as per the details of the bank account there are regular deposit and withdrawals and therefore, it is requested that considering only peak credit by Ld. CIT(A) is incorrect and deserves to be deleted." 6. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities and specifically, he relied on para 5.3.3 of the order of CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this explanation of the assessee was found correct that against these five deposits on dt. 14th June, 1996, Rs. 31,000; 21st July, 1997, Rs. 1,27,000; 18th Sept., 1997, Rs. 22,000; 4th Oct., 1997, Rs. 26,000 and on 7th Nov., 1997, Rs. 52,000 there were sufficient cash withdrawals from AWI and from SBI, Mayapuri, but this addition has been confirmed by learned CIT(A) on the basis that there is time gap between the assessee's withdrawals from his own partnership M/s AWI or from his own bank. There is finding recorded by-the learned AO or by learned CIT(A) that apart from depositing these cash into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
