9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the tune of ₹ 15,67,800/-. 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. Since, we are restoring the matters controversy before the AO therefore, the AO is directed to assess the income of the assessee in view of the observation made above we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and resorted the matter to the file of the AO for further adjudication Addition on account of unsecured loan credit u/s 68- confirmation on source of transaction - Held that:- The loan creditor has a debit balance of ₹ 1,54,118/-. Thus instead of declaring Shri Jayesh K Vora as sundry debtor for ₹ 1,54,118/, the assessee has declared him as a unsecured loan creditor for ₹ 13,42,83.51/-. This difference to the tune of ₹ 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 hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C. Current Account No.23/CD/238: This Account is in the name of Sejal Trading Corporation which is the Proprietary Concern of Jayesh K Vora. (c) The First Appellate Authority erred in considering together the gross total cash deposits appearing in the accounts mentioned at (i) and (B) above and sustaining the addition of ₹ 41,93,900 made by the A.O, though the appellant's husband (Jayesh K Vora) is separately assessed to income tax under PAN ABUPV1167G and has been maintaining regular books of account. (d) The First Appellate Authority should have considered the cash deposits appearing only in S.B Account Number 706 mentioned at (i) above. 2. The C.I.T (A) ought to have seen that S.B Account number 706 held by the appellant with Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd which is a running account in which there are several cash deposits as also cash withdrawals and should have therefore restricted the addition to ₹ 15,87,800 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 ₹ 14,96,950 representing the difference between the amounts mentioned in the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 ₹ 22,08,800/- and deposit ₹ 19,85,100/- therefore, the said amount to the tune of ₹ 41,93,100/- was treated undisclosed income and added to the income of the assessee. The assessee also surrendered the interest of income of the ₹ 3,47,174/-. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of ₹ 46,39,960/-. Feeling aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee therefore the assessee filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1:- 4. Under this issue the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the disallowance to the tune of ₹ 41,93,100/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee was having two SBI A/c. Nos.706 601. The deposit in the SBI Account N.706 as on 31.03.2011 was to the tune of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be done in connection with the assessing of the income of joint account to the tune of ₹ 19,85,100/- with the Jayesh K Vora. In this regard, we observed that the necessary verification is required to be done at the end of AO to justify the claim if, any raised by the assessee whether this income has been assessed at the end of her husband Jayesh K Vora or not. If, this amount has been assessed with the Jayesh K Vora, in the said circumstances, the said amount is not liable to be added with the income of the assessee. We direct accordingly. The other contention of the assessee is that he was having the SBI Account 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 22,85,800/-. The big amount of deposit is to the tune of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
