9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the deposits are by Sri K. Basavaiah also and payments are for Rice purchase. This indicates that the entire cash deposit of ₹ 48,07,730 relates to his rice business. The learned CIT (A) has correctly ordered the concerned AO within whose jurisdiction the husband of the assessee is assessed to verify the sanctity of the claim in the rice business. Having said so, just because the assessee is a joint holder of that account, any amount deposited by her husband which he would have earned from a separate business, it cannot be added to the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT (A) on the relief granted to the assessee by the CIT (A). The grounds are rejected. Disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the cash deposits in bank a/c of the assessee relate to business activity of assessee s husband, solely relying on the assessee s declaration and the letter filed by the assessee s husband c) The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the AO has not brought on record any material to show that these deposits are made by the assessee, without considering the fact that the onus to prove the sources for deposits made in the assessee s bank account lies with the assessee . 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, is an individual deriving income from salary. She filed her return of income on 28.07.2011 for the A.Y 2011-12 admitting an income of ₹ 2,74,840. The AO completed the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Sri Veerabhadra Rao was a landlord and was not a businessman. He being only a farmer and he was not an income tax assessee and that he even did not have a PAN. Being not convinced, the AO added the entire deposits in the bank a/c in the hands of the assessee, as income from unexplained sources. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A), who in his order observed that the assessee as stated before the AO and also during the appellate proceedings that the cash deposit of ₹ 48,07,730 made in the joint a/c belongs to her husband Shri K. Basavaiah. Assessee further contended that the AO asked for the account copy of the assessee s husband as appeared in the book for verification. Before the learned CIT (A) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (A). Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in further appeal before us on this issue. 6. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO, whereas the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the first appellate authority and also relied on the order of the learned CIT (A). 7. We have perused the detailed submissions of the DR as well as the learned Counsel for the assessee and on the related facts and circumstances, we arrive at our considered view that here is a case where husband and wife are having joint bank a/c, bank statement and accounts were produced before us and even the bank statement regarding the relevant transactions were also brought in before us which are already on record. The assessee s husb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
