9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd is dismissed. Cash deposits made in the bank account unexplained - there was no compliance from the assessee to explain the sources of cash deposits made in the bank account - assessee contended that the deposits were made out of the withdrawals - Held that:- As evident from the bank account, there are frequent cash deposits and withdrawals which required to be considered in totality of the facts but not the deposits alone. Since the assessee has assured that he would submit the entire information required for the purpose of completion of the assessment, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice the issue should be remitted back to the file of the AO to arrive at the true and correct income. The assessee must submit the necessary information explaining the sources of deposits, and the application of withdrawals before the AO to consider the issue on merits. Assessment made on the basis of bank deposits instead of the seized material - assessee submitted addition made on the basis of deposits made in the bank accounts without having any seized material - Held that:- In this case, the assessee has not filed the regular returns of income. During the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut based on cash deposited in bank account, the addition is bad in law and may be deleted. 3. Ground No.1 is related to the issue of not providing the seized material to the assessee well in advance to analyze and file the return of income. This ground is common to all the appeals for the Assessment Years of 2008-09 to 2011-12. A search u/s 132 was conducted in the case of D.Sampath on 13.07.2011 in connection with the cases of Smt. U Rajya Lakshmi and others. During the course of search, incriminating material was found and seized indicating undisclosed income in the case of the assessee from the premises of searched person. Consequently a notice u/s 153C was issued by the Assessing officer (AO) on 02.11.2012. In response thereto, the assessee filed the return of income on 06.06.2013. Subsequently, the AO had issued the notice u/s 143(2) dated 14.11.2013 which was served on the assessee on 30.11.2013 but there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the AO issued a letter to the assessee on 03.03.2014 giving final opportunity to submit the information for which the assessee has not responded except submitting the copies of bank statements. Final show cause notice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D. Srinivas Axis Bank, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 193010100127189 1,13,400 Total 5,48,400 Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 D. Srinivas Axis Bank, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 193010100127189 10,99,000 Total 10,99,000 Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 D. Srinivas Axis Bank, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 193010100127189 17,63,000 D.Padmalath Axis Bank, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 910010042334221 7,65,000 Total 25,28,000 Total Deposits for the F.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 relevant to A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2012-13 51,11,900 The AO issued notices to the assessee to explain the sources of cash deposits made in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute which is more convenient to say that the bank account do not belong to him and that they belong to Smt. Uppu Rajyalakhnii and his brother, Sri D. Sampath. The appellant has further contested that the said cash deposits are made for making payments to the landlords from whom Smt. Uppu Rajyalakshmi has purchased Lands. No credible evidence in support of his claim was produced in this regard. 4.2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has made the assessment on the issue of cash deposits and there was no evidence that either Smt.Uppu Rajyalakshmi or Sri D. Sampath has owned up the bank account of the appellant as claimed by him before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the arguments of the appellant that the deposits in his bank account belong to Smt. Uppu Rajyalakshmi and his brother is prima facie not correct and hence rejected. There is no deviation from the facts and circumstances of the present case as that of Sri D. Sampath wherein I have held the similar view. Following the rule of consistency, I uphold the order of the Assessing Officer in this case. In view of the facts discussed above, I am constrained to confirms the addition of ₹ 9,36,500/- made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interest of justice the issue should be remitted back to the file of the AO to arrive at the true and correct income. The assessee must submit the necessary information explaining the sources of deposits, and the application of withdrawals before the AO to consider the issue on merits. Accordingly we set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the issue back to the file of the AO fresh consideration. Needless to say that the AO should give more opportunity to the assessee to explain the case. Accordingly. the appeals of the assessee for the A.Ys 2008-09 to 2011-12 on this ground are allowed for statistical purpose. 8. Ground No.4 is related to the contention of the assessee that the CIT(A) ought to have verified the records and the assessment order of Smt. U Rajya Lakshmi and given an opportunity to the assessee. During the appeal hearing this ground was withdrawn by the Ld.AR therefore, this ground is dismissed as withdrawn for the A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12. 9. Ground No.5 is related to the assessment made on the basis of bank deposits instead of the seized material. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the search u/s 132 was conducted in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
