9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1540 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of cash deposited by the assessee in her saving bank account maintained with Induslnd Bank - CIT-A deleted the addition - Department contends that since the assessee had not disclosed the purpose of withdrawal of cash from bank and usage thereof the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have granted her the benefit of such cash withdrawn from the bank a long period back - HELD THAT - As per the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Deepali Sehgal 2014 (9) TMI 1073 - ITAT DELHI as correctly taken note of and followed by the ld. CIT(A) it is not mandatory under any law that an individual has to keep his/her savings in the bank account only and not as cash in hand. In Shiv Charan Dass vs. CIT 1980 (4) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT in this regard it has been held by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court that the onus is on the Department to show that the explanation of the assessee should not be accepted.Further it is trite that nobody can be asked to prove a negative as was sought to be done by the AO. The department is also wrong in contending that since the assessee is not filing her wealth tax returns regularly the ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting that the assessee maintains personal books of account and draws personal balance sheet. Here it needs to be reiterated that it is the department itself which has accepted the balance sheets drawn by the assessee in her personal capacity and that for the assessment yea 2007-08 to 2011-12 in the wealth tax cases of the assessee the wealth tax returns filed by the assessee were based on the personal balance sheets of the assessee and it was the same AO who accepted the cash in hand which was as per the balance sheet of the assessee for wealth tax purposes. No material has been brought on record by the Department to contradict the well reasoned findings of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A). Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?50,00,000/- on account of cash deposited by the assessee in her savings bank account. 2. Crediting of cash withdrawn from the bank a long period back and kept by the assessee. 3. Acceptance of personal books of accounts and balance sheets by the assessee despite not filing wealth-tax returns regularly. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of ?50,00,000/-: The primary issue revolves around the deletion of ?50,00,000/- added by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the assessee's income, which was deposited in her savings bank account. The assessee claimed that the source of this deposit was cash in hand as per her balance sheet dated 31.03.2010, which showed ?1,31,11,293/-. The AO rejected this claim, stating that the assessee was not engaged in any business, thus questioning the maintenance of a cash book. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including her balance sheets and bank statements, to substantiate her claim. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not produce any evidence to show that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee had been spent elsewhere. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO failed to contradict the assessee's documented evidence. 2. Crediting of Cash Withdrawn from Bank a Long Period Back: The AO contended that the cash deposits were not credible as they were made a long period after the cash was withdrawn from the bank. The assessee argued that the cash was withdrawn for a land deal that did not materialize, and hence, it was re-deposited. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting that the AO did not provide any evidence to prove that the cash was spent elsewhere. The Tribunal supported this view, citing various judicial precedents which held that unless the AO can show that the withdrawn cash was spent, the benefit of such withdrawals should be allowed to the assessee. 3. Acceptance of Personal Books of Accounts and Balance Sheets: The AO questioned the authenticity of the assessee's personal books of accounts and balance sheets, particularly because she had not been filing her wealth-tax returns regularly. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had been filing her income tax returns regularly since the assessment year 1995-96 and had submitted her personal balance sheets up to the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal noted that the same AO had accepted the assessee's balance sheets for wealth tax purposes, thereby contradicting his stance in the income tax assessment. The Tribunal highlighted that the department cannot have two different standards for wealth tax and income tax assessments. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of ?50,00,000/-. It was established that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, and the AO had failed to provide any contrary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's skepticism was not backed by any legal requirement or substantial evidence, and the assessee's explanations and documented evidence were credible and consistent with judicial precedents.
|
