9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Again, the holding period is approximately 2 months which cannot be said to be unreasonably long. Moreover we find that it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee utilized the cash in any other manner. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shiv Charan Dass vs.CIT, Punjab (1980 (4) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) has held that where the explanation of the assessee was reasonable and there was nothing on record to show that the amount was utilized by the assessee in any other manner than the one which was represented by the assessee, the onus lay on the department to show that the explanation of the assessee should not be accepted. We hold that the deposits stand explained and addition on account of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arundeep Singh 132-H, BRS Nagar,Ludhiana 141421 16,54,760 28.08.08 Bank of India Ludhiana 141421 2 Aman Sindhu Arundeep Singh S/o Gian Singh, 132-H, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana 16,54,760 28.08.08 Bank of India Ludhiana 141421 4. The assessee was asked to verify the source of cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee submitted cash flow statement explaining withdrawal of cash from Axis Bank account and deposit of cash in the bank. As per the cash flow statement, cash deposits from 13.10.2008 to 17.01.2009 amounting to ₹ 8,54,760/- out of ₹ 16,54,960/- in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank amounting to ₹ 8,54,760/-. These deposits were made in the bank account of the assessee in Bank of India between 13.10.08 and 17.01.09 as follows:- 13/10/2008 2, 50,000/- 16/10/2008 3, 00,000/- 20/10/2008 50, 000/- 21/10/2008 24, 760/- 17/01/2009 2,30,000/- As per the cash flow statement, the cash balance available with the assessee as on the date of making the above cash deposits was ₹ 14 lakhs, which was on account of withdrawals made from 20/08/2008 to 29/09/2008. This balance was more than sufficient to meet the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should not be accepted. The Hon ble High Court held as follows: It is also not disputed that the amount of ₹ 10,000 each was found deposited in the names of the two major daughters of the assessee. Sudarshan Kumari was 18 years of age at the time of partial partition of the HUF, whereas Satya Metha was 13 years old. The money was found deposited in the names of the two girls after five years of the partial partition and, therefore, it is obvious that both these daughters were major at the time when the money was found deposited in their names. The assessee took the plea that this amount represented a sum of ₹ 20,000 belonging to the HUF which was declared under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. It is not disputed that a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enomination notes. Before the department rejects such evidence, it must either show an inherent weakness in the explanation or rebut it by putting to the assessee some information or evidence which it has in its possession. The department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good proof into no proof. If the amount of ₹ 20,000 disclosed under the disclosure scheme had been found to be deposited or utilised by the assessee or the HUF in someother manner, in that case, a legitimate inference could be drawn that the amount in dispute was from undisclosed sources as the amount so disclosed in the disclosure scheme had been found to be otherwise utilised by the assessee or by the HUF but the finding on this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
