9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1) That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 61,36,300/- and accordingly denies his liability to pay tax and interest thereon. 2) That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in making the addition of Rs. 59,50,000/- u/s 69 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash deposits in the State Bank of India during demonetization period. However, this cash deposit majorly related to the proceeds from sale of agricultural land. 3) That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not considering the fact that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reason ""Large Value Cash Deposits during the year AY 2017-18"". After completion of said proceedings, the Ld. AO made additions of Rs. 59,50,000.00 to the total income declared by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18 and raised a demand of Rs. 60,19,910.00. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned perused the material available on record. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously confirmed the addition of Rs. 59,50,000/- under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in the SBI during the demonization period. However, this cash deposit majorly related to the sale of agricultu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration of Rs. 58,12,500/-. In this regard the Ld. AO observed that there is huge gap of 17 months between amount received of sale of land and cash deposited in the bank account and explanation furnished by the assessee regarding cash deposited of Rs. 59,50,000/- during demonetization period not acceptable only because the huge gap of 17 months. 9. The assessee assails above order by way of appeal and the ld. CIT(A) strangely dismissed the appeal by simply reproducing statement of facts and grounds of appeal and the Ld. CIT(A) nowhere discussed the merits of the case even the submission advanced by the assessee/ appellant before first appellate authority. 10. The Ld. AR vehemently submitted that the Ld. AO made the addition in question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the respective income tax return file and earlier is unexplained likewise also relied upon the order of the coordinate Bench in ITA No.788/AHD/2012 Sudhirbhai Praveen Kant Thaker Vs. ITO AHD in which held as under :- "We find merit into the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no dispute that the amount which was withdrawn by the assessee on various dates during the 2006 was available with him for making deposits. In the absence of finding that the amount which was previously withdrawn by the assessee had been utilized for any other purpose merely on the basis of conjecture that the amount might have been utilized for any other purpose and was not available with the assessee for making the deposits, we are una ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
