9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment year under consideration, assessee filed his return of income on 11/11/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1,97,665. The income declared comprised of commission received on purchase and sale of cars and interest earned on loans and advances as well as from savings bank account held in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank. During the assessment proceeding, from the information available on record, AO found that assessee was having one more account being savings bank a/c No. 18301536725 in ICICI Bank, Begumpet Branch which has not been disclosed to the Department. On obtaining an account statement from the concerned bank, AO found, assessee has not offered the interest income from the said bank account. When this was brought to the notice o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 4,67,737, loan of Rs. 5,00,000 received in cash from mother Stm. Latabai Gupta and the balance deposits were out of withdrawals made earlier. Ld. CIT(A) after considering submissions of assessee accepted loan received from mother amounting to Rs. 5,00,000 for the reason that not only Smt. Latabai Gupta has confirmed of having given the loan but the AO himself has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271D of the Act against assessee for having accepted the loan in cash. As far as assessee's claim of deposits made out of opening cash balance of Rs. 4,67,737, ld. CIT(A) observed, assessee did not indicate details of transaction wise and the circumstances under which cash in hand was deposited into the bank account and withdrawal was made. On f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income. In the revised balance sheet only change made was by adding the balance in ICICI Bank in the capital account. It was submitted, before the AO assessee has submitted cash book incorporating all cash transactions including the cash deposits in ICICI Bank. As per the said cash book also assessee was having sufficient cash balance to make the deposits in the bank account. Ld. AR submitted, CIT(A) also erred in observing that assessee has made only two cash withdrawals of Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 1,85,000 on 21/11/2009 and 24/03/2010 respectively. Whereas, assessee has also made cash withdrawals of Rs. 1,00,000on 07/07/2009, Rs. 75,000 on 02/09/2009 and Rs. 2,00,000 on 22/09/2009. Therefore, when assessee was having sufficient cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revised balance sheet. However, on perusal of the balance sheet as on 31/03/2009 and the original balance sheet as on 31/03/2010 filed along with return of income, it appears, assessee has shown opening cash balance of Rs. 4,67,737. To some extent, AO has also accepted this fact. Therefore, assessee's claim of availability of opening cash balance cannot be disbelieved. That being the case, it is necessary to examine whether assessee could have utilized the cash in hand available for making deposits into the bank account. On perusal of the bank statement, a copy of which is at page 21 of paper book, following cash deposits were found to have been made by assessee: 06/04/2009 - By cash - Rs. 1,00,000.00 22/05/2009 - By cash - Rs. 1,65,000.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot accounted for the transactions appearing in the savings account with ICICI Bank. On verification of the account statement obtained from concerned bank, total deposits made during the year by the assessee was found to be Rs. 34,54,028. AO alleging that assessee has failed to explain the source of such deposits treated the entire deposit of Rs. 34,54,028 as unexplained investment of assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 11. During the appeal proceeding, ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and examining evidences on record found that an amount of Rs. 18,88,050 was received through cheque/RTGS from family members who also confirmed of having advanced the amount. Ld. CIT(A), therefore, deleted the addition of Rs. 18,88,050 as sour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment of assessee. In so far as deposits of Rs. 5 lakhs claimed to have been made out of cash loan of Rs. 5 lakhs received from Smt. Latabai Gupta is concerned, it is a fact on record, AO not only initiated but also imposed penalty u/s 271D of the Act against assessee for having received loan in cash in violation of section 269SS of the Act. This action on the part of AO is suggestive of the fact that he has accepted the cash loan to be genuine. That being the case, ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000. Similarly, it is evident from the bank statement that assessee has made cash withdrawal of Rs. 1,00,000 on 21/11/2009, whereas assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 1,00,000 on 17/12/2009. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
