9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated to have been received are advances made out of the withdrawals made in earlier years. This aspect has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A). Even though, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the contentions that the creditworthiness of those people have not been proved, these are not cash credits by them but return of advances given to them earlier. If those transactions are to be disbelieved, then, advances to that extent would be available in cash balance with assessee. Since the verification of cash flow statement by AO is not on record, it is of the opinion that AO can verify the withdrawals of cash in earlier year and if those are not fully utilised for construction payments of the building, being constructed then, assessee’s contentions that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of cash deposits in various bank accounts. The details and the decision of the CIT(A) are as under: 9.1. The Assessing Officer noticed that there were deposits in assessee's Bank accounts as under: Cash deposits in ICICI Bank ₹ 22,95,000 Other deposits in ICICI Bank ₹ 11,35,000 Deposits in HDFC Bank ₹ 1,50,000 ₹ 35,80,000 9.2. As the assessee could not explain the sources for such deposits, the total amounting to ₹ 35,80,000/- was considered as income of the assessee. During the appeal proceedings the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the Assessing Officer were transfer entries or cheque deposits in ICICI and HDFC Banks. The Assessing Officer in his Remand Report held that the appellant satisfactorily explained the sources for these transfer entries/cheque deposits. Therefore, what is to be explained is the source for cash deposits of ₹ 28,95,000/-. The appellant had drawn cash flow statement which begins with cash on hand of ₹ 2,99,664/-. The source for cash on hand was not explained and such cash on hand was not supported by any immediate withdrawals from her account or from any other source. The sources for cash deposits of ₹ 28,95,000/- appearing in ICICI Bank account were explained by the appellant as under: Date of ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with cash on hand of ₹ 2,99,664/-. The sources for such cash on hand was not supported by any corroborative evidence. For the deposit made of ₹ 5,00,000/- each on 20.07.2009 and 29.07.2009, it was explained by the appellant that she had paid an amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- to Sri J.Venkat Reddy and another amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- to Sri J.Srinivas Reddy for purchase of land. However, the deal did not go through and each of them have returned back ₹ 5,00,000/-. Both the persons Sri J.Venkat Reddy and Sri J.Srinivas Reddyhad filed confirmation letters. However, the appellant could not produce any agreement copy entered to purchase the land. The appellant also did not give the specific dates on which the payments w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Sri J.Venkat Reddy/ Sri J.Srinivas Reddy/out of cash balance on hand, is totally unsupported by any corroborative evidence and therefore, cannot be accepted. It is also pertinent to mention that while going through the bank account of the appellant, the following cash deposits for other years were found as under: HDFC Bank, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad A/c.No.06421050110106 Date Amount 03.11.2008 ₹ 1,50,000 03.11.2008 ₹ 50,000 29.12.2008 ₹ 1,00,000 23.01.2009 Rs. 4,00,000 In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was sufficient amount to be deposited in the bank account. It was further submitted that balance of deposits were also reflected in the cash flow statement and there was no unaccounted amount to be considered as income . An amount of ₹ 7 Lakhs was also advances given earlier which was received back accordingly since the cash flow statement has not been disproved, assessee s contention should be accepted. 4. Ld.DR, however, relied on the orders of CIT(A) and submitted that there is a difference in the statement given to the AO that the amounts are advanced from assessee s husband and the statement given to CIT(A) that the amounts are received from others. Therefore, the statement should not be accepted as genuine. 5. I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
