TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h withdrawals made by the assessee from 13.6.2007 to 25.3.2008 works out to about 14,00,000/-. On comparison of both the amounts and in the absence of any other material, we are of the view that the assessee should, out of cash withdrawals of about 14,00,000/-, have utilized a sum of 11,18,000/- only for making re-deposits in the banks account. However, our computation, referred above, needs to be verified by both the parties. In our view, the Assessee may be given set off of aggregate amount of deposits made at a sum of 2,000/- and above during the period mentioned above against the cash deposit of 26,38,404/-. The AO is directed to verify the above said computation along with the assessee and give set off of the amount as arrived at by bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: "1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law to consider the peak credit in the account as undisclosed cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as against the total credit in the said account as held by the AO after having held that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim that cash deposits in the bank account have been partly made from the withdrawal of the same account; 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessee having failed to discharge the onus of explaining the source of investments made in "Share Purchase", the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting ₹ 30,72,971/- as against ₹ 45,58,634/-" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed certain details relating to the bank deposits and share transactions. The ld. CIT(A) called upon the remand report from the AO. After hearing the Assessee, after considering remand report of the AO and the reply filed by the Assessee, the ld. CIT(A) held that the peak cash balance of ₹ 13,68,828/- found in the bank account is to be assessed as unaccounted income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. However, the ld CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the peak credit working furnished by the assessee. 5. With regard to the share transactions, that the ld. CIT(A) noticed that the Assessee could not explain the payments made towards purchases of shares to the tune of ₹ 12,29,609/-. Further, the ld. CIT(A) noticed that the Assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c., on various dates. Cash withdrawals have been made mostly in round sums. According to the Assessee cash withdrawals made on an earlier occasion was also utilized to make deposits on the subsequent dates. In our view, the said explanation may hold good in respect of deposits made in round sums only. In respect of deposits made in odd figures, the said explanation may not be applicable, since the same is against normal human conduct. Hence, in our view, the assessee has to explain the deposits made in odd figures, failing which the same is liable to be assessed to tax. From the summary of cash transactions, we ourselves worked out the deposits made in the round figures of ₹ 2000/- and above for the period started from 01.8.2007 to 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we modify the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to sustain the addition of balance amount after giving set off of the deposit of ₹ 11,18,000/- or such other sum that may be arrived at by the AO. 7. The next issue relates to the addition relating to the share transactions carried out by the assessee. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the AO has made an addition of ₹ 45,58,634/- as per the table shown in the assessment order. However, out of the transactions noted by the AO, the transaction entered on 14.9.2007 amounting to ₹ 7,80,319/- only pertains to purchase of shares and remaining amounts pertain to sale of shares. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted, the AO was not correct in treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|