9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to interfere with the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO on this issue and dismiss Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal. Deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee with Kotak Mahindra Bank -there is no evidence whatsoever brought on record before us in the form of relevant purchase bills, confirmations of the parties etc. to support and substantiate the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the said cheques were issued against purchases of the business of the assessee’s wife. Moreover, such cheques claimed to be issued against purchases are very few and the debits appearing in the said bank account appear to be towards personal expenses such as credit cards expenses, club expenses, telephone expenses, schools fee etc. It is also noted that payments are frequently made from the said accounts to one party namely Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. for which no explanation whatsoever is offered on behalf of the assessee - no infirmity in the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.1247/KOL/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - Sh. P.M. Jagtap, Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.10.2009 27.10.2009 Rs.40000/- Received from Ruby Biswas. Paid to MCCS on 04.11.2009 30,000/- 30.11.2009 Rs.10000/- Redeposited of cash withdrawal on 28.11.2009 03.12.2009 Rs.17500/- Sale of old jewelry to Deepak Mukherjee 17.12.2009 Rs.5000/- Received from mamoni for donation to CRY on 30.12.2009 5001/- 02.02.2010 Rs.49000/- Received from arpita chatterjee for payment of credit card bill of arpita online on 29.01.2010 02.02.2010 Rs.49000/- Sale of old jewelry to Sanjay Shaw 05.03.2010 Rs.50000/- Sale of Santro Car. 05.03.2010 Rs.50000/- Sale of Santro Car. 08.03.2010 Rs.30000/- Sale of Santro Car. 02.03.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee before Ld.CIT(A) and since the submissions made by the assessee while challenging the additions of ₹ 4,35,150/- and 18,11,765/- were not found acceptable by him, Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to confirm both these additions made by the AO for the following reasons given in his impugned order:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee. As will be evident in the succeeding paras the above mentioned cash deposits are not the only cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. In fact there are other cash deposits of ₹ 18,11,765/ in Kotak Mahindra Bank which are being dealt in the succeeding paras. As regards sale of mother's old jewellery is concerned, assessee has submitted some confirmations from the purchasers who happen to be his friends. A.O. has mentioned his reasons as to why he is not accepting assessee's contention in this regard. I also have serious reservations on the explanation offered by the assessee. As can be seen assessee is a high networth individual earning net income of about ₹ 50,00,000/annually. Sale of personal belongings and household items are done in a distressed situation. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation regarding deposit of ₹ 3,06,150/ is not genuine and it is only an afterthought to justify these cash deposits in his bank account. Hence assessee's contentions are rejected and addition of ₹ 3,06,150/ is confirmed. 3.2 Grounds of Appeal No.2 In the Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c. cash deposit of ₹ 18,11,765/was made. Assessee had explained these deposits from 2(two) sources. ₹ 2,00,000/was claimed to have been received as consultancy fee and the balance was claimed to have been received as sale proceeds from wife's business. In the appeal proceedings, AI R has submitted that assessee's wife Smt. Arpita Chatterjee is the joint holder of this account and all the cash deposits are claimed to be from Sari business of Ms Arpita Chatterjee. It is further submitted that G. P. addition @ 8% may be made. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee. During assessment proceedings assessee had initially claimed that ₹ 2,00,000/was received in cash as consultancy charges. However A.O. has pointed out several loopholes in this story. In the appeal proceedings, assessee has not stuck to this explanation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... almost one year after the journey performed. On the same ground, the claim of the assessee of having received a sum of ₹ 49,000/- from his wife for payment of credit cards expenses was not found acceptable by the authorities below. Keeping in view these cogent and convincing reasons given by the authorities below, we are of the view that the source of deposits found to be made in his bank account with HDFC Bank as explained by the assessee to the extent of ₹ 3,06,150/- was rightly rejected by the authorities below. In that view of the matter, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO on this issue and dismiss Ground No.2 of the assessee s appeal. 7. As regards the deposits found to be made in the bank account of the assessee with Kotak Mahindra Bank aggregating to ₹ 18,11,765/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated before us the submissions made before the authorities below that the said deposits re-presented sale proceeds of the business of his wife. He has contended that the amount of the said deposits thus cannot be entirely added as income and only the profit element involv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
