9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law, the CIT(A) III, Baroda erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 11,93,250/- out of addition of ₹ 13,97,500/- made to the returned income by the Assessing Officer as cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in regular and disclosed bank account of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A)-III, Baroda erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,60,0-00/- made to the returned income by the Assessing Officer on account of advance received. 3. The Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. During the course of assessment proceedings on the basis of AIR information vide order sheet ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1.3 lakhs, we confirm the action of the CIT(A). 7. Addition of ₹ 1.26 lakhs was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), after giving relief of ₹ 10,000/-. Following was precise observations of CIT(A) :- So far as additions of ₹ 10,000/- + ₹ 66,000/- + ₹ 60,000/- are concerned, again the Assessing Officer s observations that cash withdrawal of ₹ 2 lakh on 17.8.2006 and ₹ 1 lakh on 17.8.2006 is not on account of self with drawal but are cash withdrawal by means of cheque issued in other persons name have not been controverted by the appellant. Hence, addition of ₹ 1.26 lakh is upheld and relief of ₹ 10,000/- is given to the appellant. 8. It appears t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the witnesses of these documents have adduced any date below their signatures. The agreements mention that the sale agreement was executed on 15.2.2006, but the place where the date of cancellation agreement was to be mentioned are left blank. Under such circumstances, it is held that the appellant has failed to establish that he received cash on account of cancellation of agreement which were deposited in his bank account. Hence, additions of these amounts are upheld. 11. However, before us, the assessee could not place on record any evidence to substantiate the identity of the person, who has refunded the money and genuineness of the transaction. Further, the finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) as reproduced herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
