9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed that only ₹ 46.00 lacs was utilized for purchase of land during the financial year 2006-07 and the balance was with the assessee. This explanation of the assessee is otherwise not acceptable as the utilization of the amount for purchase of agricultural land has been explained by the assessee only to the extent which was shown in the titled document and not actual amount of purchase consideration. The preponderance of probability is against the assessee that the entire amount which was withdrawn at the time of purchase of agricultural land was utilized by the assessee for payment of purchase considerations of agricultural land when the assessee has failed to explain the time gap of two years for keeping such a huge amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al directed to issue fresh notice to the assessee for hearing on 10/09/2018 i.e. today. The notice issued through RPAD has been received back unserved with the postal remarks that the recipient is not available at the given address . Accordingly, in these facts and circumstances of the case we propose to hear and dispose of this appeal ex parte. 3. We have heard the ld DR and also considered the written submissions of the assessee as well as the impugned orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposited ₹ 95.00 lacs in his bank account with Corporation Bank, Bhiwadi during the year under consideration. In response, the assessee submitted that ₹ 20.00 lacs was deposited out of cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajor cash receipt/inflow is as below: Cash withdrawal ₹ 950000 on 31/08/2006 Cash withdrawal ₹ 7900000 on 06/09/2006 Cash recd. against sale of agricultural land Rs.2900000 on 18/08/2008 Cash withdrawal out of KCC Deposit ₹ 2000000 on 13/05/2008 Out of cash balance of ₹ 9150000/- remained with the assessee, the ld ITO Bhiwadi considered as explained ₹ 4900000/- and the amount of ₹ 4250000 was considered by the ITO as unexplained on the plea that ₹ 4250000 was kept by the assessee in cash for more than 2 years which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during assessment proceedings, the A.O has accepted the genuineness of cash deposits amounting to ₹ 49 lakhs. However, balance amount of ₹ 46 lakhs was added to the income of the appellant for want of credible evidences about the genuineness of source of such cash deposits under section 68 of the Act. 5. That the present appeal is directed against the addition made by the A.O of the amount of ₹ 46 Lakhs u/s 68 of the Act. 6. That the appellant has submitted that the amount of ₹ 46 lakhs were deposited out of cash generated out of cash withdrawal made by him on 31/08/2006 ₹ 9,50,000/-) and on 06/09/2006 (Rs.79,00,000/-). 7. That the A.O contended that out of cash withdrawal of Rs. 88,50,000/- the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 88,50,000/- for purchase of land, however, the assessee claimed that only ₹ 46.00 lacs was utilized for purchase of land during the financial year 2006-07 and the balance was with the assessee. This explanation of the assessee is otherwise not acceptable as the utilization of the amount for purchase of agricultural land has been explained by the assessee only to the extent which was shown in the titled document and not actual amount of purchase consideration. Therefore, the preponderance of probability is against the assessee that the entire amount which was withdrawn at the time of purchase of agricultural land was utilized by the assessee for payment of purchase considerations of agricultural land when the assessee has failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
