2017 (12) TMI 1269 - AT - Income Tax

Cash deposits made in ICICI Bank - deemed income - Held that - It is true that assessee has furnished cash flow statement from 01-04-2008 till 31-03-2010 to explain various withdrawals in the bank and expenditures. The opening cash balance of ₹ 2,99,664/- considered by the CIT(A) does not pertain to the year under consideration. This is the balance in earlier year. Remand Report of the AO has not been mentioned by the CIT(A) in the order. Neither the assessee also placed the copy of remand report on record. Assessee has filed a cash flow statement and justified the deposits in bank accounts. Most of the amounts stated to have been received are advances made out of the withdrawals made in earlier years. This aspect has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A). Even though, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the contentions that the creditworthiness of those people have not been proved, these are not cash credits by them but return of advances given to them earlier. If those transactions are to be disbelieved, then, advances to that extent would be available in cash balance with assessee. Since the verification of cash flow statement by AO is not on record, it is of the opinion that AO can verify the withdrawals of cash in earlier year and if those are not fully utilised for construction payments of the building, being constructed then, assessee s contentions that these are advances given earlier and returned during the year should be accepted. For this limited purpose, the issue is restored to the file of AO to examine the cash flow statement and decide on the basis of the facts as available. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A)'s order regarding cash deposits in ICICI Bank.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a return of income but failed to respond to AO's notices. AO made additions to total income, including a deemed income of cash deposits in various bank accounts. CIT(A) examined facts, deleted certain additions but sustained the addition of ?35,80,000 as deemed income of cash deposits. Appellant explained sources for cash deposits in ICICI Bank, detailing each deposit date and source. AO considered ?22,95,000 as unexplained income. Appellant's explanations for deposits included amounts received from individuals for land purchase. However, lack of evidence, agreements, and cash transactions raised doubts. CIT(A found explanations unsupported and sustained the addition. Appellant contended the cash flow statement covered withdrawals from earlier years, supporting deposit sources. Ld. CIT(A)'s observation on opening cash balance was based on prior years. The case was remanded to AO for verification of cash flow statement and withdrawals for construction payments. AO to re-examine and decide based on available facts. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.