9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 in a sum of Rs. 41,93,900 (wrongly taken by the A.O at Rs. 41,93,100). This sum of Rs. 41,93,900 comprises Rs. 22,08,800/- and Rs. 19,85,100. (b) The C.I.T (A) failed to appreciate the facts of the appellant's case that the appellant and her husband (Jayesh K. Vora) have been maintaining the following Bank Accounts with the Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd In its Goregaon (East) branch. In the name of the appellant (Mrs. Sejal J. Vora) S.B. Account Number 706; In this account the gross cash deposits for the year ended 31-3-2011 amounted to Rs. 22,08,800. ii. S.B Account Number 601; This account is in the joint names of the appellant and her husband (Jayesh K Vora) and the gross total of cash deposits in the year ended 31-3-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representing the peak of the cash deposits. 3. (a) The First Appellate Authority should not have enhanced the assessment made by the A.O, by a sum of Rs. 14,96,950 representing the difference between the amounts mentioned in the loan confirmation letters furnished by Jayesh K. Vora and the balances appearing in the name of )ayesh K. Vora in the statements submitted by the appellant to the A.O.-------- while the statement furnished by the appellant showed Jayesh K. Vora as a creditor of the appellant in a sum of Rs. 13,42,831.51, the confirmation letter issued by the creditor showed that he had to pay 1,54,118.49 to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority therefore added a sum of Rs. 14,96,950 {Rs.13,42,831.51 + Rs. 1,54,118.49} u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usband). The appellant craves leave to add to, modify, vary or delete any of the above grounds before or at the time of hearing of the above appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.03.2012 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 3,87,698/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.09.2012 was issued and duly served upon the assessee on 29.09.2012. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, on account of change of charge, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was again issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee did not explain the cash deposit of Rs. 22,08,800/- and deposit Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tune of Rs. 22,08,800/- as on 31.03.2011 and the Account No. 601 was with the joint name of the assessee and her husband in which the amount to the tune of Rs. 19,85,100/- was found and the said amount had been assessed in the return of her husband of the assessee Jayesh K Vora. Therefore, the said amount is not liable to be added to the income of the assessee in accordance with law. It is also argued that the Account No.706 belongs to the assessee's in which there was a withdrawal and deposit therefore peak credit is liable to be taken into consideration in view of the law settled in commissions CIT(A) Vs. Saraf Trading Company 2015 376 ITR 534 Allahabad High Courtand ACIT Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. 2015 153 ITD 453 ITAT M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.706 in which there was a deposit and withdrawal and the total deposit up to the year ended on 31.03.20111 was amounting of Rs. 22,08,800/-. The copy of the said account is lies at page 14 to 15 of the paper book in which there are number of withdrawal and deposit and the total deposit was to the tune of Rs. 22,85,800/-. The big amount of deposit is to the tune of Rs. 15,67,800/-. In view of the law settled in CIT(A) Vs. Saraf Trading Company 2015 376 ITR 534 Allahabad High Court and ACIT Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. 2015 153 ITD 453 ITAT Mumbai Bench. We are of the view that the peak amount is liable to be added to the income of the assessee specifically in the circumstances when there is a number of withdrawal and deposit. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000 and no closing balance was declared. The second confirmation is in the name of Shri Jayesh K Vora. The loan creditor has a debit balance of Rs. 1,54,118/- paise. Thus instead of declaring Shri Jayesh K Vora as sundry debtor for Rs. 1,54,118.49/- paise, the assessee has declared him as a unsecured loan creditor for Rs. 13,42,83.51/- paise. This difference to the tune of Rs. 14,96,950/- was assessed as unexplained undoubtedly, this addition was not made by the AO. We are of the view that the said loan transactions are required to be examined at the end of the AO by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. While raising the addition by the CIT(A) no opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee, therefore we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
