9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO that the capital introduced in the "capital account" of the assessee in the books of the firm, source of which was not explained by the assessee, therefore, the impugned addition was made. As a part of the deposits belonged to the firm, then it is expected from the assessee to place on record the final outcome of those amounts in the hands of the firm, whether duly disclosed or not. It is also expected from the assessee to explain to the AO the availability of cash of Rs.1,15,000/- stated to be deposited out of the personal cash. Because of these two reasons, restore this ground back to the stage of the AO to be decided de novo - in favour of revenue for statistical purpose. Profit from sale of Terrace - Assessment on protective basis - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT(A) has judiciously appreciated all the evidences, through which it was established that the amount in question was in fact belonged to the firm, M/s. Amardeep Associates. It could be possible that while completing the assessment of the assessee, the return of the firm was not made available to the AO, but established factual position was that a return of income was filed, and in the return t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art 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 The AO has also raised a question that why the cash was withdrawn from the bank. In his opinion, in normal course, whenever a person makes a withdrawal from the bank, then he never re-deposits the same cash in the bank. According to him, the assessee has not proved that the same cash which was withdrawn earlier was deposited in the bank. After assigning these reasons, the AO had taxed an amount of Rs.9,97,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in the hands of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried before the First Appellate authority. 4. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee's explanation was that the cash withdrawn on several dates from the said bank was the cash in hand, as is evident from the books of accounts, especially, the cash book, hence, the redeposit was fully explained. On due consideration of the explanation of the assessee, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 bank was otherwise utilized for some other purposes, therefore, the cash was not available with the assessee. In the absence of any such allegations, it was not justified on the part of the AO to presume that the cash, which was withdrawn earlier was not the same cash, which was re- deposited by the assessee. Especially when the assessee has maintained day-to-day cash book, which was, rather, a self- explanatory evidence in support of the assessee. Therefore, under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no force in this ground of the Revenue, hence dismissed. 6. The ground no.2 reads as under: "2. The ld.CIT(A) ahs erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,65,000/- made on account of unexplained investment." 7. It was noted by the AO that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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, in respect of the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- which was found deposited on 16.6.2008, the explanation of the learned AR is that said amount was out of personal cash of the assessee. From the side of the Revenue, the learned DR has vehemently objected that in the absence of any evidence about the fate of the final outcome of the alleged reversal entry by the firm, it was not proper for the learned CIT(A) to give relief. We have also noted that no cogent or satisfactory reason has been given by the learned CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee. In fact there was an adverse noting by the AO that the capital introduced in the "capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty 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, as also, the details of the construction of the property by the firm. After considering these evidences, the learned CIT(A) has held as under: "In reference to ground related to addition of Rs.16,75,000 being 50% consideration of sale of terrace on the protective basis, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the A.O. The appellant has clearly demonstrated that the firm M/s.Amardeep Associates is the owner of said terrace, the amount of sale consideration is credited in the bank account of said firm and the firm had filed return of income for the said period i.e. for A.Y. 2009-10 with ITO.Wd.9(2), Ahmedabad i.e. A.O. on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
