9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Additions confirmed - Decided against the assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 468/2018 & CM No.15412/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2018 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate Respondent Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Advocate SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the legal heirs of Late Dinesh Kumar Jain. 2. The appeal impugns the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.3612/Del/2016 and relates to Assessment Year 2011-2012. 3. The impugned order upholds addition of ₹ 27,33,333/- made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on account of unexplained cash deposits of ₹ 82,00,000/- made on different dates in the joint bank account of the appellant-assessee along with two oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessee could not proved at the assessment stage that out of cash withdrawn, some payments have been made to the contractors/suppliers and balance cash in hand has been deposited subsequently.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.O. asked for the details of project report and details furnished to the bank for utilizing the bank loan. However, no details have been filed before A.O. as to how the cash amount have been used in phased manner for construction in the property. The assessee also failed to provide any details of cost of construction incurred by the assessee and others in the property. Even no bills of purchase of material or any payment to contractor have been produced before A.O. It, therefore, clearly proved that assessee has no evidence at all to explain as to how much amount has been incurred in construction of the property. These facts prove that assessee has no evidence of any amount invested in construction of property in assessment year under appeal because no bills of material purchased have been filed before the authorities below. The assessee did not incur any construction expenditure through banking channel. No details of cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that amount is redeposited after making withdrawal from the same bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record, correctly sustained the addition of 1/3rd amount in question under section 69A of the I.T. Act. Considering the findings of the authorities below in the light of above discussion, the decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, would not support the 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55,00,000 18 7.8.2010 8,00,000 8,00,000 47,00,000 19 10.8.2010 5,00,000 5,00,000 42,00,000 20 17.8.2010 9,00,000 9,00,000 33,00,000 21 18.8.2010 9,00,000 9,00,000 24,00,000 22 18.8.2010 6,00,000 30,00,000 23 20.8.2010 6,00,000 6,00,000 24,00,000 24 1.9.2010 9,00,000 5,00,000 14,00,000 10,00,000 25 16.11.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 41 11.3.2011 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 - 182,00,000 82,00,000 1,00,00,000 182,00,000 The aforesaid statement reveals that huge amounts were withdrawn in cash on different dates. ₹ 36,00,000/- was withdrawn by way of three bearer cheques of ₹ 12,00,000/- each on 05.05.2010 and ₹ 25,00,000/- was withdrawn in cash by way of three bearer cheques on 05.08.2010. On 16.11.2010, ₹ 10,00,000/- was deposited in cash and on the same day ₹ 10,00,000/- was withdrawn by way of two bearer cheques of ₹ 5,00,000/- each. ₹ 10,00,000/- was withdrawn in cash on 20.5.2010, 11.06.2010 and 16.11.2010. Withdrawals were substantial and on many occasions there were three withdrawals, i.e., as many as or equal to number of account holders. 8. On being questioned, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant-assessee had stated that the overdraft account was separate and a different from the joint account from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
