9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in ITA No.3612/Del/2016 and relates to Assessment Year 2011-2012. 3. The impugned order upholds addition of Rs. 27,33,333/- made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 82,00,000/- made on different dates in the joint bank account of the appellant-assessee along with two others. 4. Factum that Rs. 82,00,000/- was deposited in cash in the joint bank account on different dates is not disputed and under challenge. 5. Appellant has drawn our attention to the cash flow chart, enclosed as annexure-4 to the appeal, and submits that Rs. 1,52,00,000/- was withdrawn in cash from the joint bank account on different dates between 3.5.2010 till 4.1.2011. Rs. 82 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Jauhari Mal Goel 201 CTR 54 (.All.) held that deposit in the bank account would amount to investment under section 69 of the I. T. Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that no addition could be made on account of cash deposited in the bank account of assessee and others. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee is, therefore, rejected. 7. As regards addition on merit, the A.O. has specifically noted that assessee could not proved at the assessment stage that out of cash withdrawn, some payments have been made to the contractors/suppliers and balance cash in hand has been deposited subsequently. The assessee did not make any cheque payment for construction. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or construction only. Similarly, on 11th June, 2010 assessee has withdrawn Rs. 10 lakhs from the bank but it was not used either for redeposit or for construction purpose up to 30th June, 20 10 because on 30th June, 2010 assessee claimed deposit of Rs. 1 lakh only. Similarly, on 29th July, 2010 and 30th July, 2010, no amount have been withdrawn from the bank but assessee claimed redeposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 2,50,000 on both the days as well as claimed Rs. 5 lakhs spent for construction. Similarly, from 2nd August, 2010 to 5th August,2010 assessee has withdrawn Rs. 30 lakhs from the bank but claimed construction expenses of Rs. 5 lakhs only on 5th August, 2010. Thereafter, from 7th August, 20 10 to 1 8 t h August, 20 10,there is no withd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the assessee. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed." 7. Cash flow statement filed before us as annexure-4 and relied upon by the appellant-assessee is reproduced hereunder:- S.No. Date Amount Withdrawn (Rs.) Utilisation of cash withdrawn Balance (Rs.) Re-deposit Used for Total 1 3.5.2010 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 2 4.5.2010 8,00,000 8,00,000 8,00,000 3 5.5.2010 12,00,000 12,00,000 4 5.5.2010 12,00,000 24,00,000 5 5.5.2010 12,00,000 36,00,000 6 20.5.2010 10,00,000 46,00,000 7 24.5.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 18.11.2010 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 31 3.1.2011 7,00,000 7,00,000 7,00,000 32 4.1.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 33 4.1.2011 5,00,000 10,00,000 34 31.1.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 35 31.1.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 36 9.2.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 37 23.2.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 38 1.3.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 39 2.3.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 40 7.3.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 41 11.3.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 - & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is apparent dig holes and exposes the concocted explanation. The appellant-assessee had conveniently claimed that entire construction was without any bank transaction or bill, vouchers, etc. This is not plausible. Facts on record are glaring and one-sided. It is obvious that the bills of purchases, payments made to contractor etc. and the accounts relating to construction were held back, as they would have revealed the truth and would not have supported the already weak and tenuous explanation of the appellant-assessee. The reasoning given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse. It is based and founded on the evidence and material on record. 10. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
