9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f facts of the case are that the assessee was involved in business of consultancy, brokerage and construction in real estate filed return on 16.01.2008 declaring income as Rs. 2,17,575/-. The contents of return in question also comprised an amount of Rs. 59,70,000/- which the assessee had deposited in cash in his savings account. The AO asked the assessee about the source of deposit and other ancillary explanation. 4. In his explanation, the assessee stated before the AO that he had received the said amount from his company Prime Property Managers Private Limited. Also filed bank statements of the said company in evidence. Claimed that he had withdrawn cash from his account which was received from the company on different dates. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted his plea of cash in hand. The AO did not disbelieve the withdrawal from bank. But disbelieved the pattern of the same. Finally reached to conclusion that the cash deposited and withdrawn in question was not the same. Consequently, treated the amount in question i.e. 59,70,000/- as income from 'undisclosed sources' vide assessment order dated 23.12.2009. 8. In appeal preferred by the assessee against the assessment order, the Ld. CIT (A) sought remand report from the AO. The AO submitted the same by terming the assessee's contentions as those of without any new evidence. Consequently, the Ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the order of AO by holding that the source of money in hand had not been established. In this regard, Ld. CIT (A) also ana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consistently withdrawn and that too of smaller amounts shows that it is towards his daily business requirements or to meet out other liabilities not disclosed in his return of income filed. iii) The appellant is engaged in real estate business as a trader as well as a commission agent or broker where transactions in cash is a common admitted fact; iv) No evidences are brought on record to prove that the cash deposited in the year 2007 is the same cash withdrawn in year 2005 & 2006. v) From the cheques issued by the appellant as its copies collected from bank it is seen that the same are paid to different persons. vi) The findings o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rikh and Co. vs. CIT. Prayed for acceptance of the grounds. 11. We had heard the instant appeal on 11.4.2012. On that day, the appeal was argued. Since Ld. CIT (A) has returned a finding that most of the 'cheques' in question were withdrawn by third persons (vide para 3.3.7 of the order), therefore, we wanted to confirm the authenticity of the said finding. As a result, we had asked from the learned AR during the course of hearing as to whether the assessee could file an affidavit controverting the same. The necessary affidavit dated 16.4.2012 has also been filed. The contents of the same are reproduced as under: "I, Homi Farmroze Patrawala, residing at 17/1, Mehta Building, Ground Floor, Panthaky Baug, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069, do her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r his employee. Coupled with the fact that whatever record could be arranged or could have been made available, the assessee had duly discharged his onus. Neither the revenue controverted the said evidence before the AO in assessment proceedings or in remand report. The affidavit before us has also not been sought to be controverted. Hence, we are constrained to assume that the assessee's contentions are very much correct that he had himself withdrawn the amount in question. 14. In addition to our above finding, it is further clear that there is also no evidence against the assessee that the money deposited in bank account was not drawn earlier. The reason for non acceptance of assessee contention was that there is no need to draw c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
