9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nghal is also, beyond any doubt, since he himself is a tax payer. The ld CIT(A) notes that genuineness of the arrangement cannot be reasonably questioned, as the same is between 2 real brothers, who belong to the same family. The ld CIT(A) appreciates the desire of the elder brother to help his younger brother, particularly, when the funds were needed for a genuine purpose, so according to him it cannot be reasonably questioned. We find that Ld. CTI(A) relied on the ratio of cases Anand Ram Raitani Vs.CIT (1996 (8) TMI 95 - GAUHATI High Court) and CIT, Poona Vs. Bhai Chand H. Gandhi (Born) [1982 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY High Court] for concluding that since books of accounts are not maintained by the assessee, there is no legal scope to invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR). The assessee is an employee of M/s GIR Movers Pvt. Ltd. As per the AIR data the assessee, had deposited cash amounting to ₹ 21,52,800/- with his ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers, CIBD, Level-1, West Wing, 1-11-25, Street No.1, Begumpet, Hyderabad 50016. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish details and sources of all cash deposits. The AO takes note that in the income-tax return for the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee has not declared any income from any transport business, so the assessee was asked to explain cash amounting to ₹ 21,52,8001- deposited in his aforesaid bank account with ICICI Bank with supporting documentary evidences. 3.1 AO notes that despite several opportunities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 21,52,800/- deposited with his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd, Hyderabad with supporting documentary evidences and also to show cause as to the unexplained portion of cash deposits, could not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. However the assessee did not care to adduce any evidence to substantiated his claim to explain the source of his deposit in the ICICI bank. Since the assessee did not appear nor filed any documents before the AO, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and treated the cash deposit amounting to ₹ 21,52,800/- with his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd., Hyderabad as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. In view of the above, Ld. D.R. content ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8.1 He has further submitted that he owns a plot measuring 450 sq. meters at KWC Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai. With a view to augment his income, he entered into an agreement on 30/3/2008, with M/s Shri Datta Guru Construction, a local contractor for constructing a godown on the said plot. He also issued a cheque no. 021063 dt. 30/3/2008 for Rs. l,50,000/- from his ICICI Bank account as advance for the work. Under the said contract, the contractor was to be paid a total amount of ₹ 21,25,000/-, and the work was to be completed by 15/8/2008. 8.2 It was submitted that since the assessee's only source of Income is his salary, and his trucks are operated by Shri Hari Om Singhal, his elder brother, the assessee requested him to help ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g up to 10 trucks). 8.4 In support of the aforesaid submissions, the assessee has produced before the Ld CIT(A) the sworn Affidavits of himself and his brother Shri Hari Om Singhal. He has also submitted the Cash Flow Sheets of both his trucks for the relevant period and copy of contract with M/s Datta Guru Construction for construction of the godown. He has also submitted the copies of the Registration Certificate (RC) of his trucks, Insurance premium receipts, national permits etc. of these trucks in order to further corroborate his submissions. 8.5 We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has carefully analyzed the assessee's submissions and also carefully examined the AO's comments in his remand report dated 6/3/2012. We find that befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is between 2 real brothers, who belong to the same family. The ld CIT(A) appreciates the desire of the elder brother to help his younger brother, particularly, when the funds were needed for a genuine purpose, so according to him it cannot be reasonably questioned. 8.6 We find that Ld. CTI(A) relied on the ratio of cases Anand Ram Raitani Vs.CIT 223 ITR 544(Gau) and CIT, Poona Vs. Bhai Chand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Born) for concluding that since books of accounts are not maintained by the assessee, there is no legal scope to invoke provisions of Section 68 and as such, addition made on such premise was rightly deleted. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
