9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the availability of cash so withdrawn at the time of reintroduction of capital during the year, the AO has raised an apprehension that withdrawals might have been utilized for some other purposes and it cannot be retained by the assessee in anticipation of proposed capital introduction during the year under consideration. Assessee has submitted that being an old lady, she had kept the amount so withdrawn with her for emergency requirement, the same was not utilized elsewhere, was available with her at the beginning of the financial year and was used for reintroduction of capital and has also submitted an affidavit in support of her contentions. The finding of the authorities below is in the realm of suspicion and conjectures as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce of such capital introduction has been explained as withdrawals made by the assessee from her capital account of the previous financial year. However, the AO did not accept the submission of the assessee for the reason that the withdrawals made during the preceding financial year were deposited in the current financial year have no weight because in his view, the withdrawals may have been utilized for some other purposes and it cannot be retained by the assessee in anticipation of proposed capital introduction during the year under consideration. Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 7,50,500/- was added as income from other sources u/s 69 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition so made by the AO may be directed to be deleted. Further, in support of the proposition that merely because there is time gap between withdrawals and deposits, no addition can be made in absence of any cogent material in possession of the Assessing officer, the ld AR has placed reliance on the following decisions:- ACIT vs Baldevraj Charla and Ors. (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) S.R. Venkatta Ratnam vs. Cit (1981) 127 ITR 807 (KAR) ITO vs. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal (ITAT Delhi), ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 Kolli Gopi Krishna vs. DCIT (2015) 42 ITR (Trib) 638(Hyderbad) 4. Per contra, the ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In her support, the assessee has submitted that being an old lady, she had kept the amount so withdrawn with her for emergency requirement, the same was not utilized elsewhere, was available with her at the beginning of the financial year and was used for reintroduction of capital and has also submitted an affidavit in support of her contentions. We therefore find that the finding of the authorities below is in the realm of suspicion and conjectures as the source of capital introduction has been reasonably explained by the assessee as out of her withdrawals from her capital account in the latter half of immediate past financial year which were available at the beginning of the financial year as well as from the current financial year with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
