9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t declared by the assessee. These accounts are not the recorded accounts. The assessee was required to demonstrate with evidence as to how this cash was generated. Therefore, we cannot affirm the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby set aside. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have passed a speaking order in respect of genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of depositors. It is also not clear whether the transactions in question had been reflected by other persons or not in their respective books of accounts. And also whether such transactions were reflected in their respective income-tax returns of the parties, if not what action has been taken in their hands. Under these facts, we restore this issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of ₹ 27,96,075/- made by the A.O. u/s.69 of the Act after accepting the plea of the assessee that an amount of ₹ 6,47,847/- was the loan amount take from four friends/relatives despite the fact that these loans were not reflected in the balance sheets of the lenders. Further the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and the credit worthiness of these transactions. 4. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the ld.CIT(A) be set aside and the Assessing Officer's order be restored. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 24/12/2009. While framin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relatives and the deposits in the said accounts comprised mainly of loans from friends and relatives, cash deposits, redemption of mutual fund and interest income. The assessee had also submitted loan confirmations as well as details of mutual fund redeemed during the year. However, the AO did not consider the submission of the assessee. He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted vide letter dated 17/12/2009 that a part of cash deposit in different bank accounts was made out of cash on hand generated by way of withdrawals of earlier years as reflected in opening balance and by way of withdrawals of cash balance from different bank accounts in current year. 4. We have heard the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of deposition in the current year. However, the fact remains that all these accounts were operated in earlier year also and therefore, when the contention of the appellant about cash on hand is to be accepted, then it is also required to reopen the assessment of the earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2006-07. In short, it can be concluded that the appellant has satisfactorily explained the source to the tune of ₹ 10,00,000/= being the opening cash balance and reapplication of ₹ 14,78,000/ = being withdrawals of current year. However, the negative balance of ₹ 5,37,000/= in current year's cash book remains unexplained and therefore, that must be treated as unexplained investment in form of cash deposit. Also, there was an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n treating the same as the income of the appellant. Considering the above discussion, it can be concluded that out of the total deposit of ₹ 38,95,184/=, certain sources were explained by the appellant and therefore, the ultimate position of the sustained addition is worked out as under: Rs. Rs. Addition as per Assessment Order 38,95,184 Less : Deposits stands explained and not treated as income a. Opening Cash Balance, subject to further direction hereinafter 10,00,000 b. Cash withdrawals during the year reapplied for deposition 14,78,000 c. Loans from friends and relatives 6,47,847 d. Opening bank balance in the impugned bank accounts, subject to further direction hereinafter 2.07.231 33,33,078 5,62,109 Add : Nega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the bank account. Before us, the assessee could not point out as to whether the amount of ₹ 10 lacs shown as cash on hand related to the account declared by the assessee. These accounts are not the recorded accounts. The assessee was required to demonstrate with evidence as to how this cash was generated. Therefore, we cannot affirm the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby set aside. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have passed a speaking order in respect of genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of depositors. It is also not clear whether the transactions in question had been reflected by other persons or not in their respective books of accounts. And also whether such transactions were reflected in their respective income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
