9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded on behalf of the assessee before the authorities below as well as the before the Tribunal, the assessee had declared a total income of ₹ 5,38,680/- for the year under consideration while her husband had declared a total income of ₹ 32,30,900/- for the year under consideration and keeping in view this quantum of family income declared for the year under consideration as well as for the earlier years, the availability of cash to the extent of ₹ 1,55,000/- out of savings of the year under consideration as well as earlier years cannot be doubted. We are of the view that even though the addition of ₹ 1,55,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits was made by the AO and the same was accepted by the assessee, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a/c @ ₹ 25,000/- p.m. The above explanation of assessee is not tenable at all as no matching was found between the date on which cash was withdrawn from UBI and the date cash was deposited into SBI. Moreover, it is not practicable for a person to withdraw cash from one a/c deposit it into other and then redeposit it to yet. There is no rational or sanity in withdrawing cash from one a/c and re-depositing in another a/c because she could have issued cheques or RTGS for re depositing in R.D a/c the only inference than can be drawn is that the assessee had cash income from other sources which she was not declared in here return of income. Accordingly a sum of ₹ 1,28,000/- is liable to be added back to assessee s total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 32,30,900/- during the relevant year. All these facts are borne out from the assessment order of the appellant and her penalty order under appeal before your honour now. Incomes at almost the similar range has been returned by the appellant and her husband (who maintains here domestic expenses being husband) during the immediately preceding a few years. Hence your honour may kindly appreciate that saving of the appellant in this year and the earlier year are sufficient for depositing the alleged cash deposit of ₹ 1,55,000/- which has been held as uxplained 5. The Ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in the submission made by the assessee and proceeded to confirm the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) for the following re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that cash deposits found to be made in her bank account with SBI were explained by the assessee to the extent of ₹ 1,28,000/- as withdrawals made from her bank account with UBI and this explanation of the assessee was not accepted by the AO as he found that the dates of withdrawal from UBI and deposits made in SBI were not matching. He also observed that there was no rational in withdrawing cash from one account and re depositing in another account because she could have issued cheques or RTGS. Although this view taken by the AO was accepted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
