9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmons for producing those persons. Even no such request has been made before us also. The assessee was required to establish that ₹ 2 lakh was received from the so-called lessee of the land and in absence of which, proof of ownership of the landholding itself are not relevant to explain the source of the money. In such circumstances, the burden of proof of the assessee remained undischarged regarding the source and nature of the cash deposits of ₹ 11,80,000/-in the bank accounts of the assessee. The claim of cash in hands of more than ₹ 6 lakh with the mother of the assessee is against the normal conduct of the human probability , when she has withdrawn a small amount of money from the bank during that period. - Decided against assessee Undisclosed income of the assessee company - undisclosed deposits in bank - assessment year 2011-12 - assessee claimed that cash flow statement was filed before the AO whereas CIT(A) observed that same was not filed before the AO and it was in the nature of the additional evidence and being no application filed by the assessee for admitting the additional evidences, he rejected the cash flow statement submitted by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 38,05,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit and ₹ 18,298/ - on account of bank interest earned by the appellant. 5. Being aggrieved from the said order of the learned AO, appellant had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on the various grounds. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee made his submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). However Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the submissions made by the assesee and upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhir 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 ₹ 38,05,000/-. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained the source of cash of ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... many persons and actual land in the name of the mother of the assessee is very small fraction of land, which cannot justify earning of agricultural income claimed in the hand of the assessee s mother. He further submitted that the assesse s mother was 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 ₹ 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, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds the appeal are reproduced as under: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition made of ₹ 47,10,000 and held as an undisclosed income of the assessee company. 2. That in sustaining the addition, the learned 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 ₹ 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 cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence in support of this claim. In appeal, it was for the appellant to controvert the findings of the A.O. however, the appellant has failed to do so. No request has been made for admission of any additional evidence under Rule 46A, and the appellant has not made any claim that he was prevented by reasonable cause 'from filing any evidence during assessment proceedings. 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 ₹ 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 subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
