9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in respect of the cash deposits in the bank account was liable to be restricted after telescoping the cash deposits/withdrawals in the said bank account cannot be summarily accepted, unless the assessee is able to substantiate on the basis of irrefutable evidence that the amounts withdrawn were thereafter parked by way of re-deposit in the bank account - unable to find ourselves to be in agreement with the claim raised by the assessee that the addition in respect of the cash deposits of ₹ 14,33,500/- in his SB A/c No. 0261010003562 was liable to be restricted to the extent of the peak credit of ₹ 6,55,350/-. We thus uphold the order of the CIT(A) and sustain the addition of ₹ 14,33,500/- made by him in the hands of the assessee. - Decided against assessee - ITA Nos. 5178/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2018 - SHRI R . C . SHARMA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM For The Assessee : Shri Rahul Kapadia, A . R For The Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D . R . ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-22, Mumbai, dated 30.06.2014, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 2610100008578 with DCB Bank, Branch : Santacruz (East). The A.O observed that the assessee not only failed to furnish the bank details in respect of the bank account No. 02610100035662 held by him with DCB Bank, Santacruz, but rather with the intent to mislead the department got a letter issued from the bank to the effect that the assessee had only made a cash deposit of ₹ 23,20,000/- in his saving bank account No. 02610100008578 with the bank. The A.O observed that a perusal of the contents of the letter revealed that the same was issued by the bank at the request of the assessee. The A.O in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts held a conviction that the assessee had resorted to the aforesaid exercise in order to impress upon him that he was holding only one bank account No. 02610100008578 with DCB Bank, Branch : Santacruz (E), in which cash of ₹ 23,20,000/- was deposited by him during the year under consideration. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations was of the view that the assessee had tried his level best to conceal the particulars of his another bank account No. 02610100035662 with DCB bank in which cash of ₹ 14,33,500/- was deposited by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 17,70,000/- during the year. The A.O observed that while for during the period 05.06.2007 to 23.10.2007 the cash withdrawals were to the extent of ₹ 8,20,000/-, but however, the cash deposits made in the bank account aggregated to ₹ 10,20,000/-. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations concluded that the assessee had made an unexplained cash deposit of ₹ 2,00,000/- upto 23.10.2007. It was further observed by the A.O that the assessee had during the period 30.10.2007 to 10.12.2007 made cash withdrawals of ₹ 8,00,000/-, however, the cash deposits aggregated to ₹ 12,00,000/-, which thus revealed unexplained cash deposit of ₹ 4,00,000/- upto 10.12.2007. The A.O buying the explanation of the assessee that the cash withdrawn from the bank account was redeposited during the year, observed that still an unexplained cash deposit to the tune of ₹ 6,00,000/- emerged there from. The A.O being of the view that the assesses contention that cash was withdrawn for the treatment of his relatives was baseless and nothing better than an afterthought, therefore, declined to accept the same. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations conclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010 placed on record a copy of confirmation of account from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala, as per which cash of ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 3,00,000/- was received by the assessee from her on 03.10.2007 and 26.11.2007. However, the A.O observed that the assessee had failed to place on record the copy of bank account of his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala, i.e. the donor, failing which the genuineness of the gift transaction could not be proved. The A.O further observed that the mode of gift (whether received through cash or cheque) was also not found mentioned in the photocopy of the fax message. It was further observed by the A.O that while for the fax message referred to only one single amount of gift of ₹ 5,00,000/-, however, in the copy of account confirmation which was placed on record by the assessee on 08.11.2010 it was stated that two cash entries of ₹ 2,00,000/- on 03.10.2007 and another of ₹ 3,00,000/- on 26.11.2007 was received as gift by the assessee from his aunt. The A.O in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts observed that the claim of gift so raised by the assessee was nothing but an afterthought to explain the unexplained cash deposits appearing in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee had failed to come forth with a reasonable cause for not submitting the same before the A.O. The CIT(A) being of the view that the assessee had not placed on record any corroborating evidence such as copy of purchase bills, sales invoice etc. which could go to prove that Sh. Arshad Aziz was actually engaged in a retail trading business, therefore, refused to accept the said claim of the assessee. Rather, the CIT(A) observed that now when Mr. Arshad Aziz was a resident of U.K, therefore, it was beyond comprehension that as to how he could have withdrawn and deposited cash in the aforesaid bank account maintained in India. The CIT(A) further observed that the assessee had also not placed on record the copy of the passport of Mr. Arshad Aziz which could go to prove that he was available in India to withdraw cash and deposit the same in the aforesaid bank account on the said specific dates. The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations upheld the addition of ₹ 14,33,500/- made by the A.O in the hands of the assessee. 9. That as regards the addition of ₹ 6,00,000/- made by the A.O in respect of the unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the emergency medical needs, then what prevented the assessee from depositing the entire cash of ₹ 2,00,000/- on 03.10.2007 itself, instead of depositing ₹ 1,20,000/- on the same day and depositing another ₹ 1,00,000/- on 23.10.2007. The CIT(A) observed that a perusal of the bank account of the assessee revealed that as a huge sum was available in the bank account of the assessee, therefore, there was no reason for him to have taken another amount of ₹ 3,00,000/- as cash gift from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala on 26.11.2007. Rather, the copy of account of DCB Bank revealed that the cash balance as on 26.11.2007 in the bank account of the assessee was to the extent of ₹ 10,44,335/-, which thus clearly ruled out any occasion for receiving of a gift by him on an emergency basis. The CIT(A) was further of the view that now when the donor Mrs. Anis Jariwala had intended to financially assist her brothers for meeting out their emergency medical needs, therefore, it was beyond comprehension as to what stopped her from providing such financial assistance directly to them, rather than routing the same through her nephew i.e. the assessee. The CIT(A) on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was justified in making an addition of the unexplained cash deposits of ₹ 14,33,500/- in the bank account No. 02610100035662 of the assessee with DCB Bank, and not restricting the addition to the peak cash credit of ₹ 6,55,350/-. We first advert to the issue as regards the amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- which was claimed by the assessee to have been received from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala. We find that it is claimed by the assessee that he had received a gift of ₹ 5,00,000/- from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala by way of a financial assistance to facilitate meeting out the expenses involved in the medical treatment of her brothers, viz. Shiraz Merchant and Shaukat Merchant. We find that the CIT(A) had rightly observed that the documents which were placed on record by the assessee in his attempt to substantiate the genuineness of the gift transaction, as claimed by him, suffered from certain material defects, viz. (i) the confirmation letter of the donor which was placed on record by the assessee was undated; (ii) there was no mention of the mode of gift; and (iii) that despite a specific query by the A.O the assessee had failed to place on record any supporting eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessee had absolutely failed to discharge the onus as regards proving the genuineness and veracity of the gift transaction under consideration, therefore, uphold the view of the CIT(A) that the assessee had raised a bogus claim of having received a gift of ₹ 5,00,000/- from his aunt Mrs. Anis Jariwala. We thus uphold the order of the CIT(A) to the said extent, in terms of our aforesaid observations. The Ground of Appeal No . 1 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 12. We now advert to the contention of the assessee that the A.O had erred in making an addition of the entire cash deposits of ₹ 14,33,500/- made by the assessee during the year under consideration in his SB A/c No. 0261010003562 with DCB Bank, instead of restricting the same to the peak credit of ₹ 6,55,350/-. We find that though the said plea was raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) for the very first time, however, the same was turned down by him for the reason that no evidence was placed on record by the assessee to prove that the cash withdrawn was re-deposited by him in the same bank account. We find that nothing had either been placed on record, nor averred befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
