9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count, therefore, considering the facts of the case, details of record and in the light of decision in the case of Shiv Charan Dass (1980 (4) TMI 74 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT), the amount withdrawn during the year from the same bank amount is available to assessee to make re-deposit in the same bank account in assessment year under appeal. Thus, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of ₹ 5,79,100/-. Assessee claimed gifts of ₹ 5 lakhs from family member. The assessee filed affidavits and ITR of the 3 family members in which they have stated that amount of ₹ 2 lakhs, ₹ 2 lakhs and ₹ 1 lakh have been gifted to the assessee, however, no evidence of their creditworthiness have been produced before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not challenge reopening of the assessment. Ground no. 1 is not pressed. Same is accordingly dismissed. 3. The facts of the case are that in this case, as per AIR data available with the AO, assessee has made cash deposits of ₹ 17,11,100/- and paid credit card bills of ₹ 11,61,797/- during the assessment year under appeal. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. Assessee was asked to produce the details of credit card expenses and link of the same with bank details, details of cash deposit in bank account with source and copy of all bank account statements with narration. The assessee explained that as per total cash deposits during the year comes to ₹ 13,81,100/- and not ₹ 17,11,100/-. The assessee filed two wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same was made. 4. Addition was challenged before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee explained the same facts and submitted that copy of the ITR, bank certificates and affidavits of the donor have been filed and amounts have been withdrawal from the same bank account during the year, which have been re-deposited. The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that there is a possibility that cash withdrawals might have been used by the family for personal purpose. 5. Ld. Counsel for assessee reiterated the same submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee lives in joint family, ₹ 5 lakhs was received as gift from the family members, which is supported by affidavits an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of deposit in bank account after 4/5 years. It was held that Revenue should prove, it was the assessee who spent the amount in question. Meaning thereby burden is upon by Revenue to prove that withdrawn amount by the assessee have been spent by assessee somewhere else. The Ld.CIT(A), however, put a negative onus upon the assessee to prove that money withdrawn from the bank account of the family was not utilized. Since the explanation of assessee has been partly accepted by the AO that cash withdrawn from the same bank account in assessment year under appeal is available to assessee to make re-deposit in the same bank account, therefore, considering the facts of the case, details of record and in the light of decision of the Hon ble P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce of balance amounts have been explained and is not supported by any evidence. Ld. Counsel for assessee also contended that assessee is working in UNO, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. Since, cash amount have been deposited in the bank account, therefore, Section 69 would apply against the assessee. It is a deeming provision and addition is made on account of unaccounted income of the assessee for which source is not explained. Therefore, whether assessee is working with UNO or not would not make out any case in favour of the assessee. 9. Considering the above discussion, I set aside the orders of the authorities below partly and modify the addition by giving benefit to the assessee of a sum of ₹ 5,79,10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
