9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sclosed sources. ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disapproving the cash withdrawals from one bank depositing to another, for making friendly advances through a/c payee cheque / drafts. iii) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition on account of bank deposits on which the appellant has already paid the Income Tax in relevant years. iv) That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not treating Assessing Officer's action as illegal invalid, for not issuing any show-cause notice before making the above addition. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is in connection with the addition of ₹ 3,39,000/-. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee, information was received from ITO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - = ₹ 3,39,000/- as unexplained u/s 68/69 of IT Act and included the same as income in the hands of the assessee. 5. Before the ld. C IT(A), the claim of the assessee was that he was an employee in Saison Paper Industries Ltd. since 1993 and was doing LIC business and his wife was also claimed to be doing the LIC business. The said advance of ₹ 4.00 lakhs to M/s Bajrang Bali Rice Mills was claimed to have been made for getting LIC business. The assessee explained that the cash of ₹ 2,53,204/- was withdrawn from his account maintained with Central Bank of India from 10.3.2004 to 20.5.2004 which was given to his father and was returned by him on 31.5.2004. A sum of ₹ 1.50 lakhs was deposited in Oriental Bank of Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined the source of cash deposit in the bank and in the absence of the same addition of ₹ 3,39,000/- was confirmed. 7. The ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee pointed out that the source of cash deposit were duly explained before the authorities below which have been dis-believed. Our attention was drawn to the cop y of the bank account filed in which there was cash withdrawal of ₹ 2.00 lakh on 30.4.2004 and ₹ 30,000/- on 24.3.2004. The ld. Authorised representative of the assessee further made a reference of copy of account of the father of the assessee with Ranki Ram Roop Chand, Pehowa placed at page 4 of the paper book which reveals the income earned from agricultural by the father of the assessee. The ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sited a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- in cash on 31.5.2004, sum of ₹ 1,89,000/- in cash on 5.6.2004 out of which the aforesaid loan/deposit of ₹ 4.00 lakhs was made through DD to Bajrang Bali Rice Mills. Under the provisions of IT Act the onus is upon the assessee to explain the nature of the entries in his books of account or the bank account maintained by the assessee. The requirement of law is to justifiably with evidence prove the source of deposits in the bank account or the entries in the books of account and also to explain the nature of taxability or otherwise of the receipt of money deposited in the bank account or entries in the books of account. In the absence of the assessee discharging his onus, the said receipt/entry i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,000/-, in AY 2003-04 out of ₹ 68,250/- withdrawal of ₹ 43,500/-, in AY 2004- 05 out of ₹ 98,500/- withdrawal of ₹ 32,500 and in AY 2005-06 out of 1,05,342/- withdrawal of ₹ 36,400/- were claimed to have made by the assessee. The claim of the assessee is that all the withdrawals were made by the assessee in cash and were not utilised and were available with him as cash in hand. Looking at the quantum of withdrawal made by the assessee from year to year, I find no substance in the explanation of the assessee that out of such withdrawal, the assessee had further saving of funds, which in turn were available with the assessee for depositing the same in Financial Year 2004-05. The household expenses met by the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
