9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 68 of the Act by adopting peak credit method. - I.T.A.No.822/Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A. For The Respondent : Mr. A.V.Sreekanth, JCIT ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-I, Coimbatore dated 06.03.2015 in ITA No.152/14-15 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The only issue raised in the appeal by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of rsRs. 35,12,500/- towards unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Act. 3. Brief facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d about the cash deposits in HDFC Bank to the extent of RS.27 Lakhs but in the addition made in the order, he has added the amount of ₹ 41 Lakhs without giving any details. As seen from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has considered the HDFC Bank cash deposits made on 17.09.2010, 25.10.2010, 31.07.2010, 31.05.2010 and 18.09.2010. These amounts total to RS.27 Lakhs. However, in the assessment order the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee's reply is not satisfactory being without any proof and also the time gap between the cash withdrawal and the cash redeposited is also of long gap. So it is not verifiable being no verifiable details have been furnished by the assessee. So the amount of Rs:41 Lakhs credited in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney being paid to Shri Tamiiaban.D. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that this was the cash withdrawal made by the assessee but cheque was given to Shri Tamilaban. D. However, no evidence to the extent that Shri Tamilaban. D is an employee working with Shri D. Srinivasan could be filed. Due to lack of any evidence, it could not be concluded that the cash withdrawal was made by the appellant from Dhanalakshmi Bank on 21.08.2010 and the same was used for cash deposits into HDFC Bank on 17.09.2010. This cash deposit of ₹ 9 Lakhs has to be concluded as unexplained cash deposit. 11. On 25.10.2010, there was a cash deposit of ₹ 9 Lakhs made in HDFC Bank. The appellant submitted that he has withdrawn cash on 07.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... analakshmi Bank show that an amount of ₹ 1 Lakh was paid to Shri Austin Fernandez and it cannot be concluded as cash withdrawal made by the assessee. The explanation cannot be accepted and it is confirmed as unexplained cash deposit. 14. On 01.02.2011 there was a cash deposit of ₹ 5 Lakhs made in HDFC Bank. The Authorized Representative submitted that it was an advance for land purchase during 14.05.2008 received back deposited. However, no evidence is filed in support of this explanation. Hence this cash deposit is confirmed as unexplained cash deposit. On 04.02.2011 there was a cash deposit of ₹ 1,95,000/- in HDFC Bank. The Authorized Representative submitted that ₹ 1,50,000/- advance paid for land purchase d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
