9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and suspicion however strong may be cannot take the place of evidence. Therefore the explanation submitted by the assessee that the amounts withdrawn from the bank was again re-deposited in to the bank account has to be accepted when there is no other material brought on record to show that the assessee has utilised it for some other purpose. Accordingly, the addition made cannot be sustained - appeal filed by the assessee allowed. - ITA No.1699 /Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Shri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri A. V. Raghuram For the Respondent : Shri Phani Raju ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance Capital Ltd. towards acquisition of the property but in reality, the assessee has paid a further sum of Rs.30 lakhs in cash over and above Rs.26,66,000/-. Otherwise, there was no need to obtain loan of Rs.56 lakhs and withdraw an amount of Rs.30 lakhs in cash from the bank account. The Assessing Officer therefore held that the self withdrawals of Rs.30 lakhs were made by the assessee for specific purpose of acquiring the property and is not available with the assessee as surplus. The Assessing Officer further held that the assessee has also repaid loan of Rs.18,91,000/- taken from various persons. Therefore, the cash withdrawn from the bank were utilised for repayment of loan borrowed and as such the cash withdrawal made could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half share by issuing post dated cheque for Rs.26,66,000/- and got the release deed executed on 27- 3-2008, and that on submission of the Release Deed and other relevant documents, Reliance Capital has disbursed the loan of Rs.56,00k000/- on 29-3-2008 which was used for honouring the cheque issued to his brother for Rs.26,66,000/-. The AR also filed copies of the sanction letter from Reliance Capital Ld., and the release deed executed by N. Amarnath. I find from a perusal of these documents that the assessee was already a 50% owner of the property and that considering that the loan of Rs.56,00,000/- was sanctioned against the entire property, the payment of Rs.26,66,000/- for the 50% share of the brother appears to be logical. Since, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable for making subsequent deposits sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The finding of the CIT (A) in this regard is extracted for ready reference:- "However, the assessee has not explained why it had made such huge withdrawals from the bank if not to meet specific requirements for expenses or investment. A perusal of the cash flow statement shows that despite the alleged cash balance of Rs.32,53,180/- after the cash withdrawal of Rs.30,00,000/- on 2-4-2008, the assessee chose to withdraw Rs.19,300/- and Rs.23,350/- immediately thereafter on 3-4-2008. It is against all norms of probable human behaviour that such minor withdrawals would be made when the assessee was allegedly sitting on a pile of cash of more than Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that when the assessee has explained the source of deposits, the onus lies on the department to prove that the amount available with the assessee from the withdrawals made from the bank account was otherwise utilised. The learned authorised representative for the assessee submitted that since the assessee was having adequate cash balance to make deposits to the bank accounts, no addition can be made rejecting such explanation. In support of such contention, the learned authorised representative for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:- 1) ACIT vs. Shahzad Lookman Qadir (3 ITR (Trib.) 177 (Mum.) 2) Anand Autoride Ltd. Vs. JCIT (99 ITD 227) 6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supporting the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made some withdrawals from the bank account of specific amount, a conclusion cannot be drawn that no surplus cash was available with the assessee out of withdrawals made by him from bank account. Though the assessee has explained that the amount of Rs.44,44,412/- withdrawn from bank accounts were available with him which was re-deposited into the bank accounts again, the CIT (A) has not accepted such contention by observing that the assessee has utilised the amount for specific purposes. As it appears the inference drawn by the CIT (A) is based more on presumption and suspicion rather than any clinching material and evidence brought on record. Before coming to the conclusion that the assessee has utilised the withdrawn amount of Rs.44,44,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
