9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions raised in respect of the deposit of 4,92,900/-. The said issue has not been examined in the light of the pleas and aspects that arise for consideration. Accordingly, we feel that the matter should be re-examined by the Tribunal. Liberty is also given to the appellant-assessee to file an application for additional evidence to justify and explain the reason for substantial cash withdrawals made between 12th June, 2009 to 16th October, 2009. We clarify that we have only remanded the matter for fresh consideration and have not finally determined or decided the aspect and issue on merits. Question of law is accordingly answered, partly in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue with an order of remand to the Tribunal. We clarify that the remand is only restricted to the extent of the deposit of 4,92,900/-. We have not remanded the issue regarding sale of wearing apparel and silver utensils as appellant-assessee has not been able to justify and explain that cash deposits of more than five lacs were made out of sale proceeds of wearing apparel and silver utensils. There is no evidence and material to establish sale, inheritance etc.. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee regarding the source of deposit of ₹ 10,17,650/-, recording as under:- "The assessee was in possession of person effects like wearing apparels and utensil made of silver of ancestral unique description and was agreed to sale for ₹ 510000/- and received advance of ₹ 510000/- on however subsequently the sale was finally settled for ₹ 3,85,000/- and ₹ 1,25,000/- were withdraw from the bank on 27.11.2009 and returned back to the buyer who met the assessee in an exhibition. As the sale was made of personal effects and are not capital assists and consequently no capital gain is liable to pay as such. The assessee has not linked the transactions of deposit made in cash out of available cash balance. further, in connection with sale of wearing apparels and silver utensils, the contention of the assessee has not been substantiated by any proof of sale. The contention of the assessee that silver utensil came under the definition of personal effect is also not correct. (sic) In view of definition of jewellery given U/s 2(14) of I.T. Act. Further, the assessee has not filed any evidence regarding the acquisition of the assets sold or any evidence regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has stated that he has sold Personal effects like wearing apparel and silver utensils of unique ancestral description on 03.11.2009, 07.11.2009 of ₹ 2,50,000/- ,and ₹ 260,000/-respectively in cash and the sale was finally settled ₹ 3,85,000/- and excess amount of ₹ 1,25,000/- of advance was repaid to the buyer who met the Appellant in an Exhibition. Further, it is seen that Appellant is deposited ₹ 3,250/- on 17.08.2009, Rs:14,400/- on 27.10.2009 and ₹ 10,00,000/- on 10.11.2009. Appellant has stated that he has withdrawn cash of ₹ 5,10,550/- in the following date: S.No. Date Amount 1 12.06.2009 Rs.84,450/- 2 26.08.2009 Rs.1,30,000/- 3 26.08.2009 Rs.24,500/- 3 15.09.2009 Rs.12,000/- 4 19.09.2009 Rs.86,000/- 5 22.09.2009 Rs.1,70,000/- 6 16.10.2009 Rs.3,600/- 8.8.3 Appellant is claiming that amount of cash of ₹ 5,10,550/- withdrawn on aforesaid dates have been re-deposited in the bank account. Firstly, it is not understood why Appellant, would require to withdraw the money to .again redeposit the same in the bank account. It is also not the case of Appellant that one or two days before the deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-deposited. Assessee has also not submitted any documentary evidence to support the claim that he had some personal effect of unique ancestral description. The explanation of the assessee that he was keeping cash of ₹ 4,10,000/- is also without any basis and contradictory to his submission before the CIT(A). In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly the same is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed." 13. We agree with the above reasoning and finding that the appellantassessee has not been able to justify and explain that cash deposits of more than five lacs were made out of sale proceeds of wearing apparel and silver utensils. There is no evidence and material to establish sale, inheritance etc. To this extent the impugned order does not require interference. 14. The primary reason to reject explanation of the appellant-assessee that the cash deposit of ₹ 4,92,900/- was from the withdrawals of ₹ 5,10,550/- in cash made between 12th June, 2009 and 16th October, 2009 in the first appellate order was failure of the appellant-assessee to elucidate and explain the reason why the said cash withdraw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
