9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ighty reasoning. Explanation of the assessee has been duly considered and not ignored. Implausible and lame justification for making cash withdrawals has exposed and dented the concocted explanation regarding source of the cash deposit. Factual findings are based on cumulative effect of all facts covering all essential points. We would not interfere with factual findings unless they are irrational and absurd, which no person acting judicially and properly instructed in the field of law of taxation would have passed. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No.1235/2018 and CM No. 46157/2018 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2018 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): This appeal by Shashi Garg the (appellant-assessee, for short) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) pertains to the Assessment Year ('AY' for short) 2011-12 and arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) dated 26th March, 2018. 2. The appeal being belated and delayed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 25.05.2009 2,00,000/- 6 26.05.2009 4,00,000/- 7 03.06.2009 9,00,000/- 8 06.06.2009 1,00,000/- 9 09.06.2009 8,00,000/- 10 25.06.2009 11 07.07.2009 9,00,000/- 12 08.07.2009 9,00,000/- 13 10.07.2009 9,00,000/- 14 30.07.2009 2,00,000/- 15 14.08.2009 9,00,000/- 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of property deal. Since assessee herself submits that the agent will not be able to prove anything in this regard, exercise would have been futile only. 3.1.10 Thus, it's quite apparent logical to draw the conclusion that all these withdrawals were not meant for any property transaction. But these withdrawals were for some other purpose which assessee does not want to reveal for the obvious reasons. Hence, the consequent cash deposits are not the same cash which assessee is saying that she has accumulated during the year, but this is unaccounted income of the assessee, source of which again the assessee does not want to reveal for the obvious reasons. 3.1.11 Now if we observe the cash deposits as reported in AIR information during the relevant financial year 2010-11 (A.Y. 201112), following pattern emerges: (Scanned copy of savings account in Panjab National Bank showing cash deposits during the F.Y. 2010-11) 05-04-2010 Less Deposit At: DELHI, RADHEY PURI 9,00,000.00 9,16,20847 Cr 05-04-2010 Paid to : TD PKG MKT P LTD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120420 1,525.00 8,735.41 Cr 18 11 2010 Cash deposit at DELHI RADHEY PURI 8,00,000.00 8,08,735.41 Cr 18-11-2010 CPR 8,00,000.00 8,735.41 Cr 19-11-2010 Cash Handling Chrg 10-11-2010 At Br. DELHI, RADHEY PURI 200.00 8,455.41 Cr 22-11-2010 By CLEARING 128737 1,360.00 9,815.41 Cr 23-11-2010 TFDVIDKRIS 40,000.00 49,815.41 Cr 23-11-2010 CPR 30,000.00 19,815.41 Cr 25-11-2010 ECS/POWER GRID CORPI1103950549 (MUMBA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... naccounted income of the assessee, sources of which assessee does not want to reveal for the very obvious reasons. Moreover when countered with the above discussed queries/questions, assessee did not give any explanation. Submission of the assessee is only an afterthought and that too to avoid incidence of tax, which clearly indicate involvement of component of mens-rea. Submissions of the assessee are not at all tenable and rejected straight away. Hence, in view of the facts under consideration, sequence of events and above discussion, cash deposits of ₹ 35,25,000/- has been considered unexplained cash credits within the mandate of section 68 of the I.T.Act,1961 and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are initiated separately for filing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. (Addition of ₹ 35,25,000/-) 6. Withdrawal in excess of ₹ 75,50,000/- pertains to the period relevant to the financial year ('FY' for short) 2009-10 whereas the cash deposits of ₹ 35,25,000/- which the appellant-assessee has to explain pertains to the period relevant to the FY 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
