9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt amounts. Therefore, the AO has not believed the explanation of the assessee that the amount deposited on 06/11/2009 is the amount withdrawn on 19/11/2009. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) has observed that subsequent to the withdrawal of ₹ 4,55,000/- on 19/09/2009, the assessee has also withdrawn an amount of ₹ 40.00 lakhs on 07/07/2009. Therefore, the assessee has utilised the amount of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment : Shri K.C. Das, Sr.DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, dated 28/02/2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only ground pressed by the assessee is with regard to withdrawal amount of ₹ 4,55,000/- from the bank account for the F.Y. 2009-10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee under the head income from other sources . 4. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has withdrawn an amount of ₹ 4,55,000/- from her bank account on 19/09/2009 and the bank balance as on 30/09/2009 was ₹ 41,231/-. The assessee had made further cash withdrawal of ₹ 40.00 lakhs on 07/10/2009. This withdrawal itself shows that earlier withdrawal was utilized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case, the assessee has deposited an amount of ₹ 3,88,000/- and ₹ 1,12,000/- on 06/11/2009. When the Assessing Officer has asked the assessee what is the source of deposit, it is submitted that she has withdrawn ₹ 4,55,000/- from her bank account on 19/09/2009, the same is deposited again. The assessee has not filed any corroborative evidence and also not explained what is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of withdrawal and again deposited the same on 06/11/2009 in two differential amounts i.e. ₹ 3,88,000/- ₹ 1,12,000/-. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the amount deposited on 06/11/2009 cannot be considered the same amount she was withdrawn on 19/09/2009. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
