9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cash, provided there are no evidence or circumstances to show that the earlier withdrawals could not be available to the Assessee as a source for subsequent deposit. In such circumstance one has to see the peak credit balance in the cash account and add only peak credit. The peak credit alone would have to be treated as unexplained. The peak credit theory has to take into consideration before treating the cash deposit as unexplained cash credits. Since the statement showing the withdrawals and deposits of cash in the cash account in the statement is now filed as additional evidence has not been examined by the AO, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the AO for consideration afresh after affording Assessee opportunity of be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh deposits was a sum of ₹ 1,11,23,000/-. The AO called upon by the Assessee to explain the source of funds out of which the cash deposits were made. The Assessee explained that the cash deposits are from ticket sales of HMT auditorium, agricultural income and withdrawals from banks. The assessee furnished the bank account statements and ledger copy of M/s Orbgen Technologies Pvt. Ltd. In the initial submission, the P L account submitted by the assessee, the ticket sales was shown at ₹ 75.88.156/- and has arrived at loss of ₹ 27,05,576/-. The assessee has furnished one more P L account in which the sales of HMT Cinema was shown as 67,82,856/- and net loss of ₹ 30,74,337/-. 3. The AO did not accept the explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This cash deposit of Rs I,11.23.000/- is sought to be explained by the appellant by stating that cash withdrawal from IDBI was ₹ 52,95,000/-- and deposit in that Bank was ₹ 24,16,500/- and the difference of ₹ 28,78.500/- is deposited in IOB. However, no details showing one to one co-relation between the cash withdrawal and cash deposit has been filed to prove this claim of the appellant. Further, the claim that ₹ 1,07,000/- is withdrawn from IOB on 07-04-2015 and again deposited on the same date in the same Bank has not been substantiated with any evidence and therefore, the explanation is too vague to be accepted. 5.3 The contention of appellant that the AO has not considered agricultural income of ₹ 1,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information of cash withdrawals and deposits. However, daily cash balances showing peak credits for each day were not made available before the lower authorities. The failure to furnish the same during the proceedings before the authorities below was not wilful or deliberate and that there was no negligence, mala fides, laxity or inaction on the part of the Assessee in not producing the same before the authorities below. It was also submitted that the additional evidences furnished now are essential for establishing the facts of the case in the right perspective and support the case of the Appellant. 6. Though the learned DR opposed the application for admission of additional evidence, we are of the view that admission of the additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
