9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,500/- as explained. Accordingly, remaining addition to the extent of ₹ 1,57,500/- is sustained. As regards other deposit of ₹ 7,60,800/- out of cash withdrawals of ₹ 19 Lakhs claimed to have been withdrawn on 25.11.2011, the explanation from the assessee does not provide any satisfactory basis. The claim of the assessee that cash was withdrawn for proposed purchase of residential house property (which eventually did not take place) does not inspire confidence. A taxpayer would be expected to explain why such large amount of cash was needed for proposed purchase of residential house property. The entries in the bank statement also demonstrate that these sum were marked ‘chq. paid' which is unlike cash withdrawals. A bare and unverified confirmation from the HDFC bank (without any reference number) introduced before the Tribunal without following the procedure laid down in Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules is also curious. The circumstances for mentioning the ‘chq. paid’ where the cash was stated to be withdrawn is not explained in the impugned additional evidence. Simultaneously, it is also difficult to put blinkers on uncharacteristic p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash 17.05.11 45000 cash 18.05.11 45000 cash 20.05.11 35000 cash 19.08.11 40000 cash 20.08.11 25000 cash 26.11.11 49000 cash Rs.7,60,800/- 28.11.11 340000 cash 15.12.11 49000 cash 20.12.11 49000 cash 31.12.11 49000 cash 03.01.12 35800 cash 03.01.12 49000 cash 14.02.12 46000 cash 14.02.12 45000 cash 18.02.12 49000 cash Total 1018300 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash withdrawal of ₹ 19 Lakhs. The learned AR thus submitted that the source of entire cash deposits is explained. The learned AR thereafter adverted our attention to the paper book and referred to a confirmation letter dated 17.12.2015 received from the HDFC bank which endorses the aforesaid amount of ₹ 19 Lakhs to be cash withdrawal as against erroneous mention chq. paid committed on behalf of bank. On being questioned by the bench for omitting to follow the due procedure for admission of additional evidences as contemplated in Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the learned AR drew blank but however submitted that the mistake commi tted in not following the statutory procedure should not operate against the assessee per se in the interest of justice . The learned AR accordingly pleaded that the addition towards cash deposit stands corroborated in the light of the explanation and the additional evidence adduced and consequently, the additions made towards cash deposits be deleted. The learned AR thereafter relied upon certain decisions to augment its case. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the AO and submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruled out. In the absence of any evidence, we resort to estimations for probable holding of cash by a person of ordinary prudence and assign the same to be ₹ 1 Lakh. Therefore, we deem cash deposit to the extent of ₹ 1 Lakh out of ₹ 2,57,500/- as explained. Accordingly, remaining addition to the extent of ₹ 1,57,500/- is sustained. 10. Continuing further, as regards other deposit of ₹ 7,60,800/- out of cash withdrawals of ₹ 19 Lakhs claimed to have been withdrawn on 25.11.2011, the explanation from the assessee does not provide any satisfactory basis. The claim of the assessee that cash was withdrawn for proposed purchase of residential house property (which eventually did not take place) does not inspire confidence. A taxpayer would be expected to explain why such large amount of cash was needed for proposed purchase of residential house property. The entries in the bank statement also demonstrate that these sum were marked chq. paid' which is unlike cash withdrawals. A bare and unverified confirmation from the HDFC bank (without any reference number) introduced before the Tribunal without following the procedure laid down in Rule 29 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
