9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is quite justified and based on cogent reasons and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the authorities below is uphold and consequently sole ground of assessee being devoid of merits is dismissed by upholding the addition - Decided against assessee Addition u/s 68 - huge cash deposit made in the bank account operated by assessee were not explained and the primary onus of proving the source were not discharged by the assessee - HELD THAT:- When the impugned deposits have been considered in the hands of respective account holders for making additions u/s. 68 of the Act then, the same amount cannot be added to the income of the assessee in the same AY 2011-12 on the same allegations and thus, we are inclined to hold that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the entire amount of addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) and hence, we uphold the same. Addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT:- Neither the AO nor the DR has controverted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 2,76,97,000/- made under u/s 69 without appreciating the factual matrix clearly brought out by the AO. 2. The Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 2,76,97,000/- without appreciating the fact that the source of huge cash deposit made in the bank account operated by assessee were not explained and the primary onus of proving the source were not discharged by the assessee, even though cash deposits in the bank accounts of family members were made by the assessee himself. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld ClT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 8,64,267/- made under u/s 69 without appreciating the factual matrix clearly brought out by the AO. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of unaccounted bank interest of ₹ 1,16,579/- made under u/s 69 without appreciating the factual matrix clearly brought out by the AO. 5. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set-aside and that the order of the A.O. may be restored. Assessee s Appeal ITA No.2883/Ahd/2015/SRT: 4. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts the allegation and stand of the AO. Before us also the ld. AR could not show us any documentary evidence supporting the fact of expending amounts on agriculture activity and for procurement of agriculture crop therefore, the appellant could not negate the allegations and contention of the AO. 7. From the relevant part of the first appellate order pg. 32 33, it is apparent that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and by observing three points viz. i) appellant had shown gross receipt of agricultural income of ₹ 9,36,713/- against which expenses of ₹ 3,83,200/- has been shown and has declared agricu7ltur4al income at ₹ 4,55,540/- in the return of income while as per income and expenditure account it was ₹ 5,56,513/- causing a difference of ₹ 1,00,973/- which is incorrect, secondly the claim of appellant of expenditure of ₹ 3,80,200/- has not been supported by any bill or vouchers thirdly appellant has not maintained any books of accounts to substantiate real quantum of agricultural income. With these observations, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by conclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lization of cash deposits. Therefore, entire cash deposits was rightly held to be income earned from undisclosed sources and the AO was right in making addition of ₹ 2,76,97,000/- is made on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 10. The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis and justified reason therefore, impugned order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 11. Replying to the above, the ld. AR submitted that the AO ignored very vital facts and explanation of the assessee for making addition and the same was rightly adjudicated and appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) by considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. AR drew our attention towards pg. 31 of the first appellate order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) rightly noted that the appellant being the mandate holder/power of attorney of all the account holders cannot be treated as real beneficiary owner of these accounts and consequently the cash deposits made into these alleged accounts cannot be held to be belonging to the appellant. The ld. AR submitted that it was the duty of the AO to make inquiries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant being the mandate holder of all the accounts cannot be treated as the real owner of these accounts. As a consequence the cash deposits made into all these accounts cannot be held to be belonging to the appellant. In case the appellant has to be treated as the real owner of cash deposits then sufficient material has to be brought on record that he has held all these accounts in fictitious owners. The assessing officer has recorded the statement of the appellant during the assessment proceedings and in which there is a categorical admission of the appellant that he is a merely mandate holder of all these accounts. The assessing officer is alleging and treating the appellant as the real owner without bringing anything on record any evidence that the persons / family members of the appellant in whose name these accounts stand are not in fact the real owner. It was the duty of the assessing officer to make necessary inquiries of all those members and brought forth the truth. From the assessment order it appears that no such effort has been made in this regard. The onus is on the assessing officer to prove that the appellant is the real owner because only he alleges that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... older has been of ₹ 1,29,26,760/- u/s. 68 of the Act considering the amount of deposits of ₹ 2,76,23,000/-. These facts have not been controverted by the ld. DR even on the specific quarry from the Bench and in all fairness he accepted that the addition have been made in the hands of respective bank account holders to which impugned deposits were made by the assessee in the capacity of mandate holder of the accounts. 15. In this peculiar situation when the impugned deposits have been considered in the hands of respective account holders for making additions u/s. 68 of the Act then, the same amount cannot be added to the income of the assessee in the same AY 2011-12 on the same allegations and thus, we are inclined to hold that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the entire amount of addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) and hence, we uphold the same. Consequently, grounds No.1 2 of the Revenue being devoid of merits are dismissed. Ground No.3: 16. Apropos this ground, we have heard the arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
