9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were recorded at page 20 to 39 of the paper book - Totality of the evidences available with the assessee, statements of the persons recorded and their cross examination in which no disparity has been found or detected, then explanation offered by the assessee merits to be accepted in toto. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in making addition on this count in the hands of the assessee. the addition under section 68 of the Act has been made in the hands of the assessee because of cash deposit in the bank account i.e. savings account maintained by the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand Gandhi [1982 (2) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has approved the proposition that a bank Pass Book maintained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same may be deleted as bad in law and quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above the Assessing Officer and the CIT Appeals have erred in making and confirming respectively the addition u/s.68 of the Act, in respect of bank deposits from relatives when clear evidences were before them relating to such deposits. 3. The Assessing Officer has merely made an additions on account of alleged agreement when the same is contrary to the judicial pronouncements and CIT(Appeal) has ignored evidences and remand report before her violating the principles of natural justice and their action may be held as bad in law and quashed or any other appropriate orders passed to give relief as considered fit in the circumstances of the case. 4. Appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and vide office Order Sheet entry dated 07.02.2014, the assessee and Authorized Representative agreed for addition of ₹ 32,50,000/-. The said sum was added as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the income. 5. The assessee filed appeal against the order of Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) after delay of 22 months and 2 days. He explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal late before the CIT(A) which are incorporated at page 2 to 4 of the appellate order. The assessee pointed out that he was advised that no appeal could be filed against the assessment order as he had admitted to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to no penalty being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. But penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and thereafter, the assessee filed appeal, affidavit of relatives and also produced them. Our attention was drawn to the remand report at page 40 to 43 of the paper book. However, the Assessing Officer failed to come to any conclusion. He further pointed out that the Assessing Officer in the remand report, however, stated that the affidavit submitted by the assessee may be considered by the CIT(A). But the CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee, during assessment proceedings, had agreed to the aforesaid addition. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue str ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same during assessment proceedings. The assessee had received the loan/ gift from his relatives and not from any outside party. The assessee had been able to furnish affidavit of the said relatives before the CIT(A), who confirmed the same before Assessing Officer. In the remand proceedings, the said relatives were produced by the assessee, their statements were recorded and they were also cross examined. No discrepancy has been pointed by the Assessing Officer in the said statements recorded. In such circumstances, where initially the assessee had agreed to the addition because of lack of evidences, reasons for which was certain family disputes and once the evidences were available with the assessee and also because the explanation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that there is no merit in making addition on this count in the hands of the assessee. 13. Before parting, we may also note the fact that the addition under section 68 of the Act has been made in the hands of the assessee because of cash deposit in the bank account i.e. savings account maintained by the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand Gandhi reported 141 ITR 67/30 taxmann.com 20 has approved the proposition that a bank Pass Book maintained by the bank cannot be regarded as a book of the assessee for the purposes of section 68 of the Act. Applying the said principle, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO, in ITA Nos.4223 4224 (MUM.) of 2015 orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
