9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were cash deposits totaling to Rs.9,97,000/-. For the sake of brevity, the dates and the amount of deposits are not reproduced by us, as is available on the body of the assessment order at page no.2. The assessee was, therefore, requested to explain the source of cash deposit in the said bank. In short, the explanation of the assessee was that on several occasion, the assessee had withdrawn the cash from that very bank, which was re-deposited. The date on which the cash was stated to be withdrawn from the said bank was as under:- On dated 10/04/2008 Rs.10,000/ On dated 08/08/2008 Rs.3,05,000/ On dated 13/08/2008 Rs.15,000/- On dated 18/08/2008 Rs.25,000/ On dated 19/08/2008 Rs.25,000/ On dated 25/08/2008 Rs.35,000/ On dated 27/08/2008 Rs.30,000/ On dated 25/09/2008 Rs.2,50,000/ Apart from the above source of deposits, it was also explained that there was an opening cash balance of Rs.2,50,000/- as on 1.4.2008, which was also utilized for the impugned deposits. However, the AO was not convinced and held that it was very difficult to understand that why the assessee had re-deposited the cash in the same bank. The AO has also raised a question that why the cash was w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation and details and because of these details the issue has cropped up. It is rather failure on the part of the A.O. to adduce any credible evidence through inquiry to substantiate the contention. The A O. simply mentioned the general plausible reasons which can be termed as guess work. It is therefore the addition so made is not justified. The A.O. is directed to delete the addition so made. The appellant gets relief accordingly." 5. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, and after thorough perusal of the compilation before us, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case. Rather, we may like to express our opinion that, the impugned addition was made by the AO merely on certain surmises and apprehensions. The AO has ignored the entries which were made in the cash book maintained by the assessee. Rather, he has proceeded on the premise that it was not normal for the assessee to redeposit the cash which was earlier withdrawn from the same bank. However, he has not given any reason that why it was abnormal. It is not the case of the Revenue that the cash, which was time and again, withdrawn by the assessee from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emonstrated the source of such addition. The A.O. has not appreciated the reasons of the appellant It is therefore, as discussed in ground No.1 , I am inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that in the absence of any credible adverse finding, such deposit in the capital account cannot be treated as unexplained. This is supported by fact that out of Rs.2,65,000 total introduction / deposit of capital a major amount of Rs.1,50,000 is through cheques for which no inquiry was made by A.O. The A.O. is therefore directed to delete entire addition of Rs.2,65,000. The appellant gets relief accordingly." 9. We have heard both the sides at some length. We have also perused the compilation filed before us. The explanation of the assessee was that inadvertently a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 7.7.2008 was wrongly credited in capital account of the assessee in the books of the firm. Likewise a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 6.9.2008 was also wrongly credited in the capital account. The learned AR, Mr.Pritesh Shah, has also informed that in the subsequent year, it was noticed that aforesaid two amounts were wrongly credited, therefore, a reversal entry was passed in the books of the firm. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that explanation, and has held that, even if the terrace was sold by the firm, but in the absence of any return filed by the said firm, the sale consideration was not taxed in the hands of the firm. Resultantly, he has held that the profit on sale of the property, being not offered in the hands of the firm, therefore required to be taxed on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. Resultantly, a sum of Rs.16,75,000/-, being one-half of the amount was taxed in the hands of the assessee. 12. The matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority. Before the learned CIT(A), it was explained that the ownership of the property was with M/s.Amardeep Associates. The sale proceeds have also been credited in the bank account of the firm. It was also informed that for A.Y.2009-2010, an income tax return of the firm has also been filed. Copy of the balance sheet, profit & loss account and relevant documents of the firm, have also been furnished before the learned CIT(A). It was also informed that the said firm had purchased the land and in support thereof, a copy of the purchase deed was furnished. The assessee has also furnished construction plan approved by the AUDA authority, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve basis. On account of these reasons, we hereby hold that the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Accordingly, this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 14. The grounds in the case of Shri Jaydeep Amartlal Patel are as under: "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,69,900/- made on account of unexplained cash credit. 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,20,000/- made on account of unexplained investment. 3. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.16,75,000/- made on account of profit from sale of terrace on protective basis." 15. Apropos Ground No.1, facts are identical, as discussed in hereinabove. Therefore, on the same line and for the reasons recorded therein, this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 16. Apropos Ground no.2, the issue of introduction of capital in the partnership firm is hereby restored back for re-investigation, as also re-adjudication by the AO on the same line, as directed hereinabove. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue may be treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 17. Apropos Ground no.3, a view has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
