9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he book of accounts therefore,the said contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the order of the authorities below are set aside and the AO is directed to assess only 1/3 rd of the peak credit. Addition as interest income - AO found that the assessee has not offered the interest income from the deposit to tax - HELD THAT:- Before the Tribunal nothing has been produced to show that the assessee has already offered this income of ₹ 39,265. However if this interest income is pertaining to the deposits in the joint Savings Bank Account, then only 1/3 rd of the same can be added to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO directed to verify the same and assess the interest income as indicated above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evy deserves to be cancelled. 6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs. 3. Ground No.1 is general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 4. Ground Nos.2 3 are regarding addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account. As per AIR Information received by the Assessing Officer, cash deposit of ₹ 26,93,000 was found deposited in the bank account maintained with Bank of India. During the course of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer in making the addition. It was also observed by the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee has deliberately deposited the cash below ₹ 50,000 to avoid flagging of the cash deposit and to escape further investigation. The CIT (Appeals) also rejected the contention of the assessee that only 1/3 rd of the peak cash deposit should have been considered as unexplained income of the assessee. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an individual and having income from salary and other sources. He has further contended that there is no dispute that the bank account is in the joint name of three persons and therefore the entire deposit cannot be treated as income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not produced any evidence to show that the deposits represents the business proceeds of the HUF as claimed by the assessee. Further, when the deposits are made below ₹ 50,000 then it is clear indication that the assessee has deliberately deposited cash in amounts of less than ₹ 50,000 to escape further enquiry. The explanation of the assessee that the source of the deposit from respective HUF cannot be accepted keeping in view of the volume of the transaction and the income declared by these HUF which is very meager and altogether amounting to ₹ 4,96,184 whereas the deposit in the bank in cash was found ₹ 26,93,000. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. Having considered the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as income of the assessee. Further there area corresponding withdrawals, in the bank account hence, the deposit made on different occasions without considering the corresponding withdrawal cannot be clubbed for the purpose of assessing the income on account of unexplained deposit. Thus only the peak credit can betaken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the income on account of cash deposit in the bank. The co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of G.SubbarayaShetty Vs. ITO(supra) has held in para 8.2.2 as under : 8.2.2 After due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances of the issue, the forceful submissions of the ld. AR and also with respects to the finding of the Hon'ble juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income was declared on estimate basis without mainlining the book of accounts therefore,the said contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the order of the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to assess only 1/3 rd of the peak credit. 9. Ground No.4 is regarding addition of ₹ 39,265 as interest income. 10. The Assessing Officer has found that the assessee has not offered the interest income of ₹ 39,265 from the deposit to tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) has decided this issue in para 9 as under : 9. Ground No.4 of the appealis with regard to the addition of ₹ 39,265/-mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
