9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- As evident from the bank account, there are frequent cash deposits and withdrawals which required to be considered in the totality of the facts, but not the deposits alone. Since the assessee has assured that they would submit the entire information required for the purpose of completion of the assessment, 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 should submit the necessary information explaining the sources of deposits, application of money and arrive at the peak deposit before the AO to consider the same as income. Accordingly we set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. Unexplained cash deposits - Held that:- The assessee explained the sources for the deposit for the AY 2007- 08 & 2008-09 as pension deposit and for the AY. 2009-10 the source was stated to be out of pension and agricultural income. Since the cash deposits in ground No. 2 and 3 are remitted back to the file of the AO, we are of the view that it is also required to be considered along with cash deposits discussed in ground No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing grounds of appeal for the A.. Y.. 2007- 08.. These grounds are common for all the A.. Ys 2007-08 to 2011-12.. 1. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated the fact that your Appellant was provided with the copies of the seized material without sufficient time to analyse and file return under section 153C, therefore, assessment u/s 144 is bad in law.. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the ease in confirming the addition of ₹ 2,94,500/- made in assessment.. 3. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have erred in law and facts of the case adding Rs.. 2,73,000/- being cash deposited in Bank on mere suspicion and presumption that it belongs Your Appellant ignoring the deposition of Smt.. U.. Rajyalakshmi.. 4.. The CIT(A) having called for the records and assessment orders of Smt.. U Rajyalakshiui ought to have given an opportunity to verify the same and explain the facts, after considering the same ought to have deleted the addition.. 5.. Your Appellant submits that the cash deposit of Rs.. 21,500/- is out of the income of her late husband Sri.. D.. Krishnamachary, which is below the taxable income, therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the Bank Account No.. Deposits (inRs.. ) Financial Year 2005-06 relevant to A.. Y.. 2006-07 F.. Y.. 2005-06 D.. Krishnamachary State Bank of Hyderabad, Warangal Main Branch 52111317053 58,500 Total 58,500 Financial Year 2006-07 relevant to A.. Y.. 2007-08 F.. Y.. 2006-07 D.. Krishnamachary State Bank of Hyderabad, Warangal Main Branch 52111317053 21,500 Total 21,500 Financial Year 2007-08 relevant to A.. Y.. 2008-09 F.. Y.. 2007-08 D.. Krishnamachary State Bank of Hyderabad, Warangal Main Branch 52111317053 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal hearing, the Ld.. AR argued that the AO made the entire deposits as addition though there were frequent cash deposits and withdrawals.. Cash deposits were made out of the withdrawals and both the cash deposits and withdrawals are nothing but circulation of money in the same account, therefore, requested to consider the peak deposits instead of the entire deposits.. The Ld.. AR further submitted that due to deep trouble and life threat to Sampath the son of the assessee, the entire family was scared of threats from Rajyalakshmi and others and could not comply with the notices issued by the department.. The Ld.. AR requested to remit the matter back to the file of the AO to consider the peak credits as income and assured of full cooperation with the department and submit the necessary evidences for completion of the assessment.. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.. In this case, the AO made the addition of entire cash deposits in the bank account.. The assessee contended that the deposits were made out of withdrawals.. Further, the assessee did not press her contention that the money does not belong to Late Shri Krishnamachary.. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Ground No.. 6 is related to the additions based on bank deposits instead of seized material.. 12. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.. AR submitted that the search u/s 132 was conducted in the case of D.. Sampath and notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee and the assessment was made on the basis of deposits made in the bank accounts without having the seized material.. Therefore, argued that the assessments made without the basis of the seized material required to be deleted.. 13. On the other hand, the Ld.. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.. 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.. The AO issued the notice u/s 153C stating that the incriminating material / documents pertaining to the assessee were found and seized during the course of search conducted u/s 132 in the case of Shri D.. Sampath.. The assessee had a bank account and made huge cash deposits in the said bank account.. The fact that the assessee has made huge cash deposits in the bank account, for which the source was not explained has come to the notice of the department during the course of search and seizure operations conducted in the premises of sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed by Sri D.. Sriramulu, son of the appellant.. As no satisfactory evidence was produced, the Assessing Officer has treated the same as unexplained/ unaccounted income in the hands of the appellant.. On the other hand, the appellant has contested that the amount of money spent for renovation is only Rs.. 15,00,000/-.. The sources for the same are the amounts received from Sri D.. Sampath and Smt.. Uppu Rajyalakshmi.. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case.. It is the claim of the appellant that the source for either expenditure or deposits is pointing to Smt.. UppuRajyalakshmi.. There is no material in substantiating this claim.. In view of the facts discussed, I am constrained to confirm the addition of Rs.. 18,43,758/- made by the Assessing Officer as no credible evidence is produced even before me.. 17. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record.. During the search and seizure operations conducted in the premises of Shri D.. Sampath, the AO found the material marked as Annexure A/DS/12 at page Nos.. 198-200 and noticed that Late Shri D.. Krishnamachary has made notings with regard to the house construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
