9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anations /source of deposit of the same. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the learned Assessing Officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in Punjab National Bank (A/c No. 05530000400018385),without considering the details/documents/explanations /source of deposit of the same. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 7,00,000 made by the learned Assessing Officer to the total income as unexplained deposit in HDFC Bank (A/c No. 012219300078637), without considering the details/documents/explanations /source of deposit of the same. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the learned Assessing Officer to the total income as unexplained investment in purchase of flat .without considering the details/documents/explanations submitted in this regard. 7. Any other grounds that will be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 05.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 2,22,230/- for the assessment year 2011-2012. The return of income of the assessee was processed on 31.07.2012 and the case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding and the assessee after withdrawing the same incurred the expenditure towards construction expenses. In this regard, ld. AR drew our attention to page No.26 of the paper book, which is the confirmation given by Shri Soumya Ranjan Samal towards deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee for construction of his three storey building in the above address. This document was also produced before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) without considering the same has confirmed the action of AO. It was also contended by the ld. AR of the assessee that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted that the impugned amount was received from Soumya Ranjan Samal for execution of his construction of building, which has been incorporated by the AO in his assessment order at paragraph 5.1, pages 8 to 13. However, both the authorities below have overlooked the above confirmation submitted by the assessee. It was also the contention of ld. AR that when the assessee has already submitted the confirmation of the depositor namely Soumya Ranjan Samal before both the authorities below, then the assessee has completely discharged his onus to prove the source of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s available with the assessee, thus, the addition may kindly be deleted. 6.3 As regards, ground No.5 relating to addition of Rs. 7 lakhs as unexplained deposit in the HDFC bank account, ld. AR, at outset, drew our attention to the cash book filed at page No.42 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee on 15.06.2010 has withdrawn amount of Rs. 8 lakhs from Axis bank account, Rs. 25,000/- from Punjab National Bank account and Rs. 2,00,000/- from HDFC Bank account, out of which on 14.07.2010, the assessee deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- in the HDFC Bank account. Therefore, the assessee has surplus money available with him to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- in the HDFC bank account of the assessee. Similarly, the assessee has withdrawn Rs. 2 lakhs on 02.08.2010 from the HDFC account and Rs. 1 lakh on 10.08.2010 from Axis bank account, out of which the assessee deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- on 09.10.2010 into the HDFC bank account. Further the ld. AR contended that the assessee has withdrawn amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- from Axis Bank account, Rs. 1,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank account and Rs. 2,00,000/-from HDFC Bank account on 10.11.2010. Thereafter the assessee deposited Rs. 2 lakhs on 19.01.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the paper book containing pages 1 to 75 and it is certified that the documents in this paper book are already available in the lower forum and no new materials filed in this paper book. The confirmations of Soumya Ranjan Samal and Susanta Nayak were filed before the CIT(A), which has been incorporated by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the order. The assessee has categorically stated that the assessee was looking after the construction of building of Shri Soumya Ranjan Samal and for this purpose, to execute the construction work, Shri Soumya Ranjan Samal has deposited money into the bank account of assessee. In this regard, Shri Soumya Ranjan Samal has confirmed that as he is busy in his business activities, therefore, the assessee, being one of his family members, is looking after the construction work of the building without any remuneration or commission or incentives. He further confirmed that all money are paid out of his individual tax-paid income. Further on comparison of cash book (copy of which have been filed at pages 42 & 43 of the paper book) with the bank statements (copies of which have been filed at pages 46 to 70 of the paper book), we find that the assessee was having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before him or any other income-tax authority.] [(2) For the purpose of making an inquiry or investigation in respect of any person or class of persons in relation to an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A , it shall be competent for any income-tax authority not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as may be notified by the Board in this behalf, to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) on the income-tax authorities referred to in that sub-section, notwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before it or any other income-tax authority.] (3) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, any authority referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] [or sub-section (2)] may impound and retain in its custody for such period as it thinks fit any books of account or other documents produced before it in any proceeding under this Act: Provided that an [Assessing] Officer [or an [Assistant Director [or Deputy Director]]] shall not- (a) impound any books of account or other documents without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, we are not inclined to support the order of the authorities below on this count also. Considering the above scenario and the factual aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in this regard deserves to be deleted and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 13. In ground No.3, the assessee agitated against upholding the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- as unexplained deposit in State Bank of India bearing Account No.31264302987. Ld. AR during the course of hearing drew our attention to page 26 of the paper book which is copy of confirmation of Shri Soumya Ranjan Samal with regard to deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs (Rs. 4 lakhs+Rs. 3 lakhs) into the bank account of assessee towards construction expenses. Further, ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to pages 40 & 41, which are the confirmations given by Shri Susanta Nayak, from whom the assessee received Rs. 1 lakhs @Rs. 25,000/- each on 13.10.2010, 18.10.2010, 29.10.2010 and 12.11.2010, respectively. Before us also the assessee has filed the documents, which claimed to have been submitted before the lower authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A) after examining the details and documents filed by the assessee before lower authorities to show that the assessee did not have the amount of Rs. 8,31,677/-available with it out of earlier withdrawals made front different banks for making the same as deposit in the bank account as claimed by the assessee. In absence of any such material being brought on record, we find that the lower authorities were not justified in making the addition of Rs. 8,31,677/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained deposit in bank account. Therefore, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition of Rs. 8,31,677/- and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee." Respectfully following the above observations of the Tribunal and considering the factual aspect of the matter, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained deposit as raised by the assessee in ground No.3 is not sustainable and accordingly we direct the AO to delete the same. Thus, ground No.3 of assessee is allowed. 14. As regards, addition of Rs. 1 lakhs, agitated by the assessee in ground No.4, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounts with the bank statement filed by the assessee, copies of which are placed in the paper book, we find that the above amounts were duly withdrawn from the above bank accounts and out of which Rs. 2 lakhs was deposited on 19.01.2011 to the HDFC bank account bearing No.01221930007863. On the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that to deposit Rs. 7 lakhs into the HDFC bank account, the assessee has sufficient amount which was his earlier withdrawals as discussed above and as per the above observations of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y.2010-2011 in Pabitra Mohan Samal (supra) addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the same. Ground No.5 is allowed. 16. Lastly, coming to the ground No.6 with regard to addition of Rs. 1,00,000/-, we find that the AO made the above addition on account of unexplained investment in purchase of flat. Ld. AR submitted that a flat was booked by Shri Anup Hans, who under mutual consent surrendered the same in favour of the assessee and taken bank his booking amount. The assessee paid to him on 02.12.2010 out of his withdrawal from time to time. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
