9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 26.02.2010 in ICICI Bank accounts. In response the assessee submitted as under: "As regards cash deposited in the bank during the year it is submitted that the same has been deposited out of cash withdrawals made from the banks during the year itself for which day wise cash account is enclosed herewith evidencing the source of deposit of cash in the bank by the assessee." 3.1 Thereafter, the Assessing Officer analyzed the cash in hand position and raised the following query: "As per cash flow statement, cash availability as on 01.05.2009 was Rs. 2,19,245/- than what was the purpose of withdrawal of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 05.05.2009 and Rs. 6,00,000/- on 06.05.2009. Similarly cash in hand as on 01.08.2009 was Rs. 17,57,245/- than for what purpose cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- was withdrawn on 13.08.2009 and 27.08.2009 respectively. File the explanation along with evidence failing which decision will be taken as per provisions of the I.T. Act." 3.2 In response to the aforesaid query, the assessee submitted as under: "The assessee had to make balance payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- to Shri Bhupinder Aggarwal against the property purchase as per details given above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- on 09.02.2010 1000 X300 500 X800 100 X1000 Rs.8,00,000/-on 26.02.2010 1,000 X600 100 X2000 3.4 From the above details it is very much clear that cash withdrawals and cash deposits are two independent transactions i.e. cash deposits has not been made out of cash withdrawals as stated by the assessee. Moreover, cash was withdrawn in the month of May and was deposited in the month of February which implies that cash was kept at home for almost 9 months. Since, assessee belongs to a business family, possibility of keeping the cash amounting to Rs. 15-16 lakhs at home for a period of more than 9 months is almost nil and same is ruled out. 3.10 While interpreting the meaning and scope of Section 68, one has to bear in mind that normally interpretation of a statute shall be general in nature subject only to such exception as may be logically permitted by the statute itself or by some other law connected therewith or relevant thereto. 3.11 Coming to the factual matrix of the case during the year under assessment the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 16,00,000/- in her bank account. Thus it is concluded that cash was deposited by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s out of her income from the other sources not disclosed to the department and thus added the amount of cash deposited to the income of the assesses as per the provisions of section of the Act. These details/material which the Ld AO. had collected without any knowledge or intimation to the assesses and also used against the assessee by drawing adverse inferences, were never shown or provided to the assessee and denied any opportunity to her to rebut the findings and /or to explain the difference in the denomination of currency notes at the point of withdrawal of cash and at the point of deposit of cash in the bank. 3.7 The assessee also distinguished the case-laws relied by the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that the daily cash book was maintained by the assessee, copy of which was furnished to the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. It was stated that the cash withdrawn from the bank on different dates was duly entered and recorded as receipts in the cash book. Out of this cash in hand, certain cash was deposited at a later date, however, the Assessing Officer ignored this evidence without assigning any reason. Although, the purpose for whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orthy that if the Assessee claims that this amount was withdrawn to pay to the seller as a substitute of the cheque dated 04.05.09 of Rs. 12,00,000/-, then the amount withdrawn should have been Rs. 12,00,000/-. That the Assessee withdrew Rs. 15,00,000/- can have only two implications : A. The amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was given to the Seller of the property as Undisclosed Premium on the property being given in Cash, over and above the disclosed Sale Consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/-. B. The amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was utilized for some other purpose. 8.4 In any case, there is no merit in the claim of the Assessee that the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was withdrawn in Cash on 05.05.09 and 06.05.09 as a substitute to the cheque of Rs. 12,00,000/-, nor there is any merit in the claim of the Assessee that the same Cash was deposited back into the Bank after sometime. 8.5 It is seen that the Learned Assessing Officer very rightly pointed out that if the Assessee was actually having so much of Cash in hand, what was the purpose of withdrawing Cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- on 13.08.09 and 27.08.09 respectively. 8.6 Though the Assessee claims that "Cash was wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not want to touch due to sentimental reasons and also the beliefs which generally the India ladies have that money drawn for a particular purpose should not be used for the other purpose as otherwise it may wither away and therefore they generally don't mix up the cash drawn for a particular purpose with cash required for another purpose. This happens because they are not engaged in any business activity and go by their own understanding and beliefs. The day to day cash account of the assessee has been furnished to you from which you can gauge that the assessee maintains the accounts to keep track of her financials otherwise. These transactions are duly reflected in that cash account. 8.8 As the Assessee made the above claim that the Assessee did not even touched the Cash and also that she did not mix up the Cash drawn for a particular purpose with Cash required for any other purpose, the Learned Assessing Officer made inquiries from the ICICI Bank Limited regarding the denominations of the Cash withdrawn. It was found that the Cash withdrawn both on 05.05.09 (Rs.9,00,000/-) and on 06.05.09 (Rs.6,00,000/-) was exclusively in Rs. 500/- Notes. However, the inquiry by the Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, ITA No. 5660/Del/2012, AY-2009-10; ii. Gordhan Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No. 811/Del/2015, AY 2011-12; iii. Mr. C. Vamsi Mohan Nandyal Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No. 469/HYD/2014, AY 2009-10 iv. DCIT Vs. Sh. Nikhil Nanda, ITA No. 3644/Del/2008, AY 2009-10; v. Moongipa Investment Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA No. 2605/Del/2007, AY-2003-04 5. In his rival submission, learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made in their respective orders. It was further submitted that the assessee had not given any explanation as to why the cash was withdrawn and a gap was there in re-depositing the cash. It was further stated that the denomination of the notes withdrawn was different from the notes re-deposited in the bank account. Therefore, the addition was rightly made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee had withdrawn cash from the bank account and also re-deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
