9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also not in dispute that the entire credit entries reflecting in the Central Bank of India has been added to the total income of the assessee, therefore we are of the view further addition of the impugned amount will result the double addition to the income of the assessee. Therefore we are inclined to delete the addition of ₹33.50 lakhs. Regarding the investment made by the daughter in law namely Ms. Margi Darpan Shah of the 57 Lacs, we note that the assessee has vide letter dated 24-12-2012 has admitted that the impugned fund was provided by the assessee to his daughter in law. Moreover, the assessee has not explained the source of such investment before the authorities below. Even before us, the ld. AR could not controvert the finding of the ld. CIT-A. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the assessee. Regarding the addition of ₹15 lakhs, we note that there was no addition made on account of the deposit of cheque of ₹15 lakhs in the State Bank of India. Therefore, we reject the contention of the assessee. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. - ITA No.1222/AHD/2017 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.3 The assessee during the assessment proceedings regarding the cash deposited in the above said bank account explained that such cash was a part of agricultural income earned by him . The assessee buttressed his contention by explaining that he owned an ancestral land at Village Jabugam, Tal Pavi Jetpur, Dist-Baroda. Besides the land purchased during the year was also for agriculture purpose to earn agriculture income . 2.4 However, the AO after examining the ITR submitted by the assessee observed that he did not disclose in his ITR any agricultural income earned during the year as claimed by him. 2.5 Moreover, the AO observed that the cash credits made in his bank accounts appeared in round figures as ₹ 3,00,000/- in 25-06-2009, ₹ 8,00,000/- each on 29-01-2010 and 05-03-2010. As such, the assesse was unable to substantiate the source of such cash deposits. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of such cash deposit amounting to ₹ 19,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credits. Regarding the cash deposit of ₹ 32,35,000/- in Central Bank of India 2.6 The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57.00 Lakhs in the company through the bank account of the assessee. He further admitted vide a letter dated 24-12-2012 that he provided loans of ₹ 22 Lakhs and ₹ 35 Lakhs on the dates 24-11-2009 26-11-2009 respectively to his daughter-in-law which was further deposited in the company KIT Pvt Ltd. However the assessee did not substantiate the source of these unsecured loans provided to the company KIT Pvt Ltd. Purchase of land of ₹ 2,36,11,550.00 2.11 Apart from these loans he also did not submit any sufficient evidence in respect of purchase of land of ₹ 2,36,11,550/- during the previous year 2009-10. Thus the AO in view of the above made additions amounting to ₹ 4,75,71,950/- (₹ 32,35,000/- + ₹ 19,00,000/- + ₹ 55,99,400/- + ₹ 75,26,000 + ₹ 57,00,000 + ₹ 2,36,11,550/-) to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) reiterated the same as before the AO. He further submits that he received loan from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further in his last submission regarding the investment in land of ₹ 2.36 crores and investment in KIT Pvt Ltd submitted that he made investment in land from the bank accounts belonging to him and Vandana H Shah (wife of the assessee). The investment was made out of the premature encashment of FD of ₹ 64,51,331/-. The funds available in the account of Vandana M shah was transferred from the company KIT Pvt Ltd or from his bank accounts. The details stand as under: Date Bank Name Cheque No. Amount (Rs.) Particulars 18.02.2010 Central Bank Of India 607110 15,00,000 Transferred from Krish Immigration pvt. Ltd. 01.12.2009 Central Bank of India 166802 17,00,000 Transferred from CBI Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bank account therefore addition made by the AO on account of cash deposit made in the account was accordingly deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) further on perusal of the bank statement of CBI observed that total amounts credited was ₹ 3,30,44,153/- including cash deposit of ₹ 23,00,000/- which is explained as above. Thus the source of balance deposit of ₹ 3,07,44,153/- was not substantiated by him. 4.1 Thereafter the Ld. CIT (A) in respect of the above observed that ₹ 10,001/- , ₹ 25,000/- and ₹ 9,00,000/- was deposited on various date in CBI. The said deposits were explained as agriculture income that is accepted as above. The said deposits were further utilized for making FDs as under; i. FD No.03054752752 of ₹ 3 lakhs ii. FD No.03054753018 of ₹ 3 lakhs iii. FD No.03054759893 of ₹ 3.25 lakhs 5.3.2.1Further, it is seen that these three FDs were prematurely withdrawn and following amounts were credited in the same bank account on 26.11.2009. i. FD No.03054752752 of ₹ 3,01,282/- ii. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s utilised for the agricultural operations for more than 20 years. As such the entire amount deposited in bank, invested in lands and the loan provided to KIT was out of agriculture income. Therefore, there cannot be further addition on account of cash deposit in the bank, purchase of land etc. 5.1 The learned AR also claimed that there was surplus cash available with the assessee for ₹ 21,45,000.00 with should be adjusted against the deposit of cash in the impugned bank accounts. 5.2 The learned AR also submitted that the assessee should be given the benefit of the duplicate entries reflected in the bank statement. The relevant submission of the assessee stands as under: Duplication of Addition:-1 (33,50,000) Hon'ble CIT(A) has confirmed the addition, in respect of Investment made by Haresh Shah of ₹ 75,26,000/- into Krish Immigration Tours Pvt. Ltd. (henceforth mentioned as KIT). However, the addition of ₹ 33,50,000/- have been made in duplicate, as the same amount have been transferred to KIT from the Central Bank of India - 3054663362 itself for whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, it seems that there is duplication of the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- which should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the instant case relates to the deposit of cash made by the assessee in the bank accounts, investment in the lands and the loan provided to KIT. The facts of the case have already been elaborated in the preceding paragraph, therefore we are not inclined to repeat the same for the sake of brevity and convenience. 7.1 Regarding the argument of the learned AR for the availability of cash in his hands out of the earlier years from the source of agricultural activity, we note that the assessee failed to file any documentary evidence suggesting that there was some cash available with him out of the agricultural operations carried on by him. Therefore, in the absence of such documentary evidence we reject the contention of the assessee. 7.2 Regarding the surplus cash of ₹ 21,45,000 as claimed by the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
