9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h deposited in the bank account from out of earlier withdrawals from the appellants bank accounts and confirming the addition on untenable grounds about human behaviour. It be so held now and addition be deleted. 3. Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 13,43,000/- without bringing any evidences on records as regards utilization of cash balance elsewhere and ignoring the correct legal position settled by judgments of Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunals. It be so held now and addition be deleted. 4. The ld CIT(Appeals) further erred in la wand on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,43,000/- made by the ld AO ignoring the legal position settled by the Apex Court that the appellant had no source of any income in India and addition could not be made when the source of cash deposit in the bank account was fully explained. It be so held now and addition be deleted. 5. The ld CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not properly considering the appellants grounds and in making erroneous conclusion and presumptions that cash withdrawn is presumed to be utilised fully which is clearly against the judgment of Jurisdictional Gujarat h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d fully and thereafter one would withdraw further money from the bank for another type of expenses. Accordingly amount of Rs. 9.90 Lacs withdrawn on 05-02-2016 by the assessee from his bank account number 100027021061 must have been utilized by him or his wife first and thereafter on 16-02-2016 when the assessee needed more money he could have withdrawn further amount of Rs9.90 Lacs., As per the assessee's argument he has spend an amount of Rs. 6.37 lacs out of total amount of Rs. 19.80 Lacs withdrawn from his bank account and remaining amount of Rs. 13.43 lacs was kept as it is till the date on which it was deposited in his bank account on 06-12-2016 & 07-12-2016 which is against the normal human behavior. Therefore, if huge cash is withdrawn, specific purpose should have been existed (as to why huge cash was withdrawn) and for which purpose it was spent. Further the assessee's reply should have been supported by concrete documentary evidences. Nobody withdraw money from the bank just to keep it in liquid form especially when a person, is having bank accounts and is well aware of electronic modes of payment. ..... 5. In light of the above discussion in para 4 the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), confirming the additions made in the hands of the assessee. 6. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a NRI and a citizen of UK having no independent source of income in India. It was submitted that it is not the allegation of Department that the assessee was having any undisclosed sources of income from which the deposit of Rs. 13.43 lakhs was made by the assessee in his NRO account. Further, it is also an undisputed fact that the assessee was having a NRE account with Indusind Bank from which the assessee had withdrawn sum of Rs. 19,80,000/- in two tranches on 05.12.2016 and 16.12.2016. The case of the assessee was that it was out of these withdrawlas earlier made by the assessee that the subsequent redeposit of Rs. 13,43,000/- was made by the assessee in his NRO account. The above facts haven not been disputed by the Department. The only reason why the addition was made in the hands of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer doubted that cash was kept with the assessee for ten months, and it was presumed that assessee should have spent the amounts somew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hart giving details of relatives from whom cash was received was also furnished before Ld. CIT(Appeals), during the course of appellate proceedings (at page 25 of Ld. CIT(Appeals) order). According to the assessee, during the demonetization period, these relatives offered cash in the form of SBN (specified bank notes) to settle outstanding loans. The appellant explained that he was left with no choice but to accept the SBN as a means of settling the loans, fearing that otherwise, the debts would become uncollectible. the assessee submitted that his decision to accept the cash was prudent, given the malicious intentions of the relatives, which he believed could lead to future disputes. The assessee also furnished notarized declarations from some of the relatives, the contents of which have been reproduced by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order (refer page 27 of CIT(Appeals) order). The assessee's prediction of such disputes also proved correct, as these relatives eventually generated family disputes that culminated in the assessee's divorce. Furthermore, the assessee also furnished the PAN numbers of the related parties from who the amounts were received back (refer page 25-26 of CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and its further deposit to the bank account, the amount can not be treated as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 7. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts and the explanation provided by the assessee, along-with supporting evidences/ Affivavits etc. we are of the considered view that no addition is called for the instant facts. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed." 11. In the case of Manoj Indravadan Chokshi the Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat made the following observation in this regard: "8.1. Similarly in the case of Manoj Indravadan Chokshi the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat held as follows: "... The contention of the assessee is that the amount was kept as cash in hand. The authorities have doubted about the explanation furnished by the assessee. The authorities below have doubted the source of the cash deposits, however, the contention of the Id. counsel for the assessee is that he had withdrawn the amount from his bank account and there is no finding by the authorities below that the cash withdrawn by the assessee was utilized for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of explained source of money is available in favour of the assessee. The addition cannot be made simply for the reason that there was no occasion for the assessee to withdraw the amounts from the bank. Assessee has explained the source of money and therefore no addition ought to have been made. We allow ground no. 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal and delete the addition of Rs. 3,26,000/-." 13. In the case of Sampathraj Rakesh Kumarm in ITA No. 1451/Bang/2018, the Bangalore Tribunal made the following observations on similar set of facts: "12. Thus, the total cash withdrawn from the bank account by the assessee was Rs. 20,91,500 + 17,71,800 which was withdrawn by his self-cheque. There was also a deposit of Rs. 9 lakhs in the bank account in March, 2013. After excluding the cash deposit, net cash available with assessee from the withdrawals was a sum of Rs. 29,63,000. The availability of cash as a source of deposit in the bank account was disbelieved by the AO for the only reason that it was highly improbable for a person to keep withdrawals in the bank account for a period of two years. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.R. Venka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
