9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of 60 days; meaning thereby, if a cash withdrawal is made on the first day then, it can be expected to be deposited in the bank account of the assessee on or after 61st day. Similarly, withdrawal of second day could be expected to be deposited back on or after 62nd day. In this background, the CIT(A) rightly directed the Assessing Officer to work out the peak on the above basis and tax that peak amount as unexplained investment of the assessee. Therefore, these reasoned and factual findings of the CIT(A) do not require any interference from our side Addition on account of cash credit - Held that:- This addition in question has been confirmed the CIT(A) in appeal on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuinenes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account by adopting peak cash deposits (on 60 days basis) and directing that peak investment deposit only should be brought to tax, as unexplained investment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that there is no presumption in law that peak cash deposits only should be assessed, the onus is on the assessee / persons making the claim that such advances given earlier have been received back (to substantiate such claim). In the absence of such claim the entire cash deposit has to be assessed as unexplained investment. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) is not correct in directing to adopt only the peak deposit in the bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act as no books of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the Returned Income. It be so held now. 4. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of cross objection on or before of the final hearing of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deriving income from commission and interest. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 13.07.2007 declaring total income at ₹ 1,02,370/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that there were cash deposits to the extent of ₹ 27,02,980/- in the A/c. No. 1960000100118241 of the assessee with Punjab National Bank, Kankaria Branch, Ahmedabad. The assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer to furnish the cash b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mental Representative further submitted that the CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that there was no presumption in law that peak cash deposits only should be assessed, the onus is on the assessee / persons making the claim that such advances given earlier have been received back. In the absence of such claim, the entire cash deposit has to be assessed as unexplained investment. He further contended that the CIT(A) was not correct in directing to adopt only the peak deposit in the bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act as no books of accounts are maintained by the assessee and no separate evidence of receipt of such advances was furnished before Assessing Officer/CIT(A). Thus, he pleaded that the order of the CIT(A) may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has stated before the CIT(A) on 11.01.2010 that most of those cheques were issued in favour of UT Motors - a concern of the assessee, giving loan to the needy persons for buying CNG auto kits for 2 to 4 months @ 12% to 15%. In this regard, the CIT(A) observed that even if it was accepted that peak theory would be valid in this case, because the assessee was in the business of financing; the day to day peak could not be applied in the present case because as admitted by the father of the assessee and the Authorized Representative of the assessee that the loan was disbursed by the assessee to various persons for 2 to 4 months. The CIT(A), therefore, held that if peak theory is to be applied, then the peak has to be worked out on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no books of accounts are maintained by the assessee and there were no such details on record which can be verifiable. Thus, this ground of cross-objection is also dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross-objection filed by the Assessee, both are dismissed. ITA No. 831/Ahd/2010 CO No. 107/Ahd/2010 Shri Sureshchand Mutha 6. Similar issue arose before us in this case also as we dealt with in the case of Shri Tikamchand Mutha in ITA No.830/Ahd/2010 CO No. 106/Ahd/2010 for AY 2003-04 (supra). Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of CIT(A) who rightly directed the Assessing Officer to work out the peak balance on 60 days basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
