9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shobhit Tiwari, Adv. And Sh. Yogesh Kataria-Assessee ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Revenue has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 17.3.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon relevant to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained deposit of cash to the extent of ₹ 18,45,000/-. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained deposit of cash to the extent of ₹ 18,45,000/- inspite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference, because the quantum addition has already been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) himself, hence, the penalty does not survive. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in dispute on the basis that the entire addition on account of unexplained cash deposits has been deleted by him, hence, there is no question of imposing the penalty. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing herewi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r than ₹ 36,85,000/- as had been added by the A.O in his order u/s 144 or the Income Tax Act. 5.6 After a careful analysis of the documents submitted by the appellant together with the remand report of the A.O., it is found that the appellant had made cash deposits of ₹ 5000/- on 1-2-2010 of ₹ 16OOOOO/- on 2- 2-2010 and ₹ 24000/- on 2-3-2010. The total of these amounts comes to ₹ 1845OOO/- Apart from making this addition of ₹ 18,45,000/-, the AO made another addition of ₹ 18,40000/- which consisted of cash deposits of ₹ 2,40,000/- and 16,00,000/- already considered earlier by the AO. Hence a double addition on account of the same cash deposits was made by the AO. The appellant has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited in cash and on 02-03-2010 when an amount of ₹ 2,40,000/- in cash was deposited in the bank account. The A.O while accepting registered sale deed of the property defended the addition of ₹ 18,45,000/- on the ground that there was a substantial gap between date on which sale proceeds from the aforesaid property were received in cash on the one hand and dates of cash deposits in the bank account on the other. The appellant, in his rejoinder to the- remand report submitted that in the absence of any evidence regarding any other use of cash by the assessee, it cannot be alleged that such cash was used for some other purposes and was not available with the assessee on the date when cash deposit was made in the bank account. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on record to establish the fact that cash withdrawals had been utilized other than for purpose-specified by the appellant. On this basis it was held that the AO was not justified in treating deposits of ₹ 14,52,000/- as unexplained. Finally on the time gap between withdrawals and cash deposits it has been held in the case of Moongipa Investment Ltd. Vs. ITO ITA No. 2605/Del/2007 (2012) that the same cannot be made a basis of addition. 5.8. Hence after a careful consideration of the facts of the case, the appellant's submissions, the remand report of the AO along with the appellant's rejoinder and various judicial pronouncements on this issue, I hold that the AD erred in making the addition of ₹ 18,45,000/- on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
