9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was on account of cash withdrawn by her in the preceding year in June 2012 for the purpose of investment which was not made due to lack of investment and thus remained as such with her. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had raised loans and also withdrawn cash numerous times thereafter which was not needed, if she already had so much cash in hand and had deposited cash in three installments after a period of 8-9 months. The Assessing Officer not accepting her explanation made the addition of ₹ 20,79,000/- on account of unexplained deposits, to the returned income of the assessee. The CIT(A) in appeal held that the circumstances showed that the withdrawal attributed by the assessee to the opening cash in hand was not ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Whether the appellant-assessee had offered sufficient explanation regarding the re-deposit of cash withdrawn from bank account? v) Whether the Assessing Officer had wrongly exercised his discretion under Section 69 to declare the sum as the appellant-assessee s income? vi) Whether in case of ambiguity in Section 69, the statute must be read in favour of the appellant-assessee? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee maintained a bank account with the State Bank of India. She had withdrawn ₹ 20 lacs on 11.6.2012 for investment purposes from the said bank account. However, as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been an inadvertent omission to include interest income amounting to ₹ 69,347/-. Therefore, while the total interest income was ₹ 2,76,875/-, in the income tax return, income of ₹ 2,07,528/- had been declared. According to the assessee, there was a bonafide mistake in the calculation and there was neither any attempt to conceal nor was any malafide involved. The assessee suo motu revised her income from other sources from ₹ 2,07,528/- to ₹ 2,76,875/- on 30.3.2016 so as to rectify the calculation error. Consequently, the Assessing Officer revised the total income at ₹ 7,93,560/- for the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer noticed that the sum of ₹ 20 lacs had been withdrawn from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant-assessee. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. 4. The only issue arising in the present appeal relates to addition made on account of unexplained cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee amounting to ₹ 20,79,000/- under the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. It has been recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of ₹ 20,79,000/- in her bank account in the relevant previous year. When the assessee was asked to explain, she stated that the same was attributable to her opening cash in hand and furnished a copy of cash book for the relevant financial year showing opening balance of ₹ 22,50,000/-. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had claimed that the same was kept by her in the form of cash in hand, it was noticed that despite such huge amount of cash available with her she had taken loans thereafter and even made further withdrawals from the bank of substantial amounts. Moreover, the learned CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee had claimed that the amount had been withdrawn for making investment and since the investment did not materialize the same was re-deposited. But the deposit was made in a staggered manner over a period of three months. None of the facts as pointed out by the lower authorities has been controvered before us. Further, no explanation for the above has been given by the learned counsel for the assessee even before us. We therefore a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
