9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 21 lakhs made by the assessee in the bank account on 24.12.2008 as explained to the extent of ₹ 13 lakhs and sustain the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue to the extent of ₹ 8 lakhs. - Decided partly in favour of assessee - ITA.No.469/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER For Assessee : Mr. A.V. Raghuram For Revenue : Mr. Ramakrishna Bandi ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the Order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad dated 10.01.2014 whereby he confirmed the addition of ₹ 21 lakhs made by the A.O. on account of cash deposit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. CIT(A) however, did not find the same to be acceptable and confirmed the addition of ₹ 21 lakhs made by the A.O. for the following reasons given in paras 4.2 to 4.4 of his impugned order. 4.2. I have considered the facts on record and the submissions of the A.R. I have also examined the cash flow statement prepared by the appellant on the basis of the bank transactions. The explanation of the A.R. is based entirely on the claim that the deposits had been made out of the cash withdrawals earlier made from the same account. However, contrary to the A.R s claim, I do not find any proximity between the withdrawals and the deposits. For example, the appellant made a series of five withdrawals ranging from ₹ 2,00,000 to & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that although there was no cash book maintained by the assessee to show that the deposit of ₹ 21 lakhs made in the bank account on 24.12.2008 was out of the withdrawals made on earlier dates, withdrawal of ₹ 13 lakhs made from the same bank account just a week before i.e., on 17.12.2008 should atleast be treated as the source of cash deposit made on 24.12.2008. Although learned D.R. in this regard has contended that the assessee might have utilized the amount of ₹ 13 lakhs withdrawn on 17.12.2008 for some other purpose, we find that there is nothing on record to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
