9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee as regards the source of cash deposits made in his bank account with Axis Bank. Keeping in view the entire material placed on record before the Tribunal, find that the source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account with Axis Bank aggregating to ₹ 12,12,000/- is property explained by the assessee on evidence and there is no justification on the part of the authorities below to treat the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1874/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2018 - Shri P.M. Jagtap For The Assessee : Shri Raj Kumar Patodi, FCA For The Revenue : Shri Sailen Samaddar, Addl. CIT ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) - 18 Kolkata dated 04.07.2017 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition of ₹ 12,12,000/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is an employee of M/s. Seacem Paints (I) Pvt. Ltd. He filed his return of income for the year under cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k, Maheshtala Branch. 5. The explanation/submission made by the assessee as above was not found acceptable by the Ld. CIT(A) and he proceeded to confirm the addition of ₹ 12,12,000/- made by the A.O. under section 68 for the following reasons given in his impugned order: I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee. First of all appellant has not submitted any agreement between self and M/s. Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. regarding the purchase / sale of property. Appellant has also not explained the reason why this deal was cancelled. Appellant has claimed to have returned ₹ 8,00,000/- in cash on 02.03.2012, but source of this cash is not revealed. Further perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant shows that assessee has claimed to have received cash amounting to ₹ 8,00,000/- on 15.06.2011. But the deposits have been made in the month of August, 2100. Further assessee has made a cash withdrawal of ₹ 2,35,000/- on 21.07.2011, but this amount is deposited in the 1st week of August, 2011 along with the amount of cash in hand which was received in June, 2011 for proposed sale of his property. Further assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) Agreement betw een self and M/s. Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. regarding the purchase/sale of property was not submitted by the appellant. Copies of correspondences between the appellant and Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. along with the Confirmation of Account reflecting the transactions were duly furnished to the CIT(A) for his necessary verification. (Ref: Pages 3 to 6 of Paper Book) (ii) The appellant did not explain the reason why the deal with Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was cancelled. The advance given by Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was subject to conditions specified in its letter of advance, a copy of which was duly furnished to the CIT(A) for his necessary verification. The appellant could not fulfil those conditions and ultimately, the deal was cancelled (Ref: Page 3 of Paper Book) (iii) The source in respect of cash returned to Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. on 02.03.2012 not received. The same was not considered relevant while preparing the written submissions made to the CIT(A) as the subject matter under appeal was not such refund on 02.03.2012, but the cash deposited by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings, the appellant furnished Bank statements (Ref: Pages 7 to 16 of Paper Book) for verification of cash withdrawals from bank, his Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2011 (Ref: Page 2 of Paper Book) for verification of opening cash balance and his correspondences with Tysom Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Ref: Pages 3 to 6 of Paper Book) for the verification of the cash available with him on the date of making cash deposits in his bank account by the CIT(A). All these documents involved one or more outside party and as such, cannot be said to be self serving manipulated documents. 7. Keeping in view the explanation offered by the assessee to meet each and every objection raised by the Ld. CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the addition made by the A.O. under section 68 and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, referred to the relevant order sheet entries as appearing on page no 23 of the assessee s Paper Book to point out that sufficient opportunity was afforded by the A.O. to the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash deposits found to be made in his bank account with Axis Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
