9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 143(1). 2. The appellant is a salaried employee. During the year under consideration appellant has deposited in his bank account a total sum of Rs. 38,05,000/- in cash received by him from two sources. Firstly, he has received an amount of Rs. 26,25,000/- as advance for sale of agricultural land owned by his family. Secondly he has received a sum of Rs. 11,80,000/ - from his mother as money towards applying for HUDA plots in the name of her mother. 3. Appellant's case was opened ix]», 143(3) and assessment was done. During the course of assessment proceedings the Learned assessing officer asked for the explanation of the above mentioned deposit of cash amount of Rs. 38,05,000/-. The explanations along with evidences were duly submitted before the Ld/ - AO. However, since the Ld/ - AO was not satisfied with the appellant's assertions, the appellant surrendered an amount of Rs. 26,25,0001- equivalent to cash deposited in the bank account received as advance for sale of agricultural land in order to avoid long drawn litigation process. 4. However, the Ld/ - AO did not accept appellants plea and made addition of Rs. 38,05,000/- on account of unexplained cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) The assessee accepted the unexplained credit 3) Summons u/s 131 were issued to Mr. Sudhir Kumar but no one appeared 4) No conclusive amount of land in Smt. Laxmi Devi's name 5) Huge amount of cash kept at home and still withdrawals made from bank " In view of the observation, the Assessing Officer made addition of the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 38,05,000/-. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained the source of cash of Rs. 11,80,000/-being out of mother's capital as under: S.No. Particulars Amount 1 Amount received from sale of jewellery 3,42,640/- 2. Amount sreceived from agricultural income 2,00,000/- 3. Monthly pension of Rs. 7,000/- in Ksetriya Gramin Bank, Haryana 72,000/- 4. Savings in the form of PIN Money 6,30,000/- Total (Rs.) 12,44,460/- 6. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee in absence of any documentary evidence and upheld the finding of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press ground No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the appeal and the only ground which was contested is ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintaining bank account in her village "Dhanana" and thus the argument of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that bank account was located in remote place is without any basis and there was no justified reasons for withdrawing small sum of money from the bank despite keeping huge cash with her. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee deposited Rs. 11,80,000/-in cash in his bank account on various dates mentioned in the table below paragraphs-3 of this order. The assessee claimed that out of the above cash deposits, he made demand draft for depositing with HUDA for allotment of plot of land in the name of the mother of the assessee. It is claimed that due to non-allotment of the plot, the said amount was refunded to the mother of the assessee and deposited in her bank account. Regarding the source of the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee, it was claimed that same was given to him by his mother out of her sources, which are mentioned above. The major sources of money claimed are from amount received on sale of jewellery (Rs.3,42,460/-; amount received from lease of agricultural land ( Rs. 2,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT (A) has erred in recording adverse findings which were not only based on misappreciation of evidence but are also based on non-existent facts and such findings as recorded are factually incorrect. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both on facts and in law while disposing of the appeal in completely brushing aside the detailed written submissions dated 26-03-2015. Thus, the order of CIT (A) is vitiated for non-consideration of the factual and legal submissions made and thus suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is thus vitiated in law. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred, both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition made of Rs. 38,10,000/- over and above the amount of surrender made by the appellant on account of cash deposited out of cash withdrawn from bank as unexplained cash credits. 5.That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in not giving the benefit of the additions made in the assessment year 2010-11 of Rs. 38,05,000/-. 6. That on facts & circumstances of the case the learned AO has erred in charging interest of Rs. 4,94,836/- u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the appellant wished to claim that the cash deposits were out of cash withdrawals, then it was necessary for him to produce the cash book, or cash account before the A.O. and substantiate its claim. The A.O. has pointed out that the required evidence was not produced during assessment proceedings. Even in appeal, the appellant has failed to controvert the findings of the AO in the assessment order with necessary evidence. In view of these facts, the appellant's claim is not acceptable." 14. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the addition of Rs. 38,10,000/-. 15. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to page 46 to 48 of the paper book, which is a cash flow statement prepared on the basis of cash withdrawn from various banks and subsequently redeposited in bank accounts under reference i.e. ICICI Rohini Branch. According to the Ld. Counsel addition in dispute of unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 38,10,000/- stands explained. He submitted that said details were though filed before the Assessing Officer, but was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) holding the same in the nature of additional evidence. He submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
