9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to be available with the assessee in the form of cash. If the assessee had no source of income apart from rental or pension income and some interest amount and same income earned regularly has been withdrawn regularly leaving very less cash in the bank account, that shows the pattern that the assessee was indeed in the habit of keeping the money in the form of cash probably looking the old age and various ailments as explained by him - explanation of the assessee to be reasonable and plausible and preponderance of probability is in the favour of the assessee and without any adverse material it cannot be presumed that the cash deposited by the assessee is out of some his undisclosed source. Accordingly, the addition as sustained by the CIT (Appeals) is deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 960/Del/2021 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2022 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. ; Ms. Sumangla Saxena , Adv. Department by : Shri M. N. Shete, Sr. D. R. ; ORDER Per Amit Shukla , JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent cash available with the assessee even if period of 2013-14 is excluded withdrawing ₹ 7 lac. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing order u/s. 250 of the IT Act, without affording adequate opportunity to represent the assessee and passing the said order in haste which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition despite unequivocal evidences and documents furnished by the assessee as and when sought by the Ld. AO at the time of assessment. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an Individual and senior citizen aged about 79 years old who has retired as Senior Government servant, Addl. Secretary Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of law, Government of India. The assessee had shown income from Pension, earning of bank interest in his Individual capacity and has declared income at ₹ 19,06,400/-. The assessee is also Karta of HUF, 'Om Prakash Nahar HUF' which was earning rent from property deposited in Bank of Baroda and has been shown separately in HUF's Income Tax return. The ld. Assessing Officer noted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the figure of deposit after demonetization. In F.Y. 2016-17, before demonetization, cash withdrawn are shown below: 17.08.2016 : ₹ 8,00,000/- 23.08.2010 : ₹ 7,00,000/- 27.10.2016 : ₹ 4,50,000/- Total : ₹ 19,50,000/- From 01.04.2016 to 9.11.2016, cash withdrawn from the account was ₹ 19,50,000/-. In my consideration view, it will be in the fitness of things if it is held that cash of ₹ 19,50,000/- was still available for re-deposit in the bank account. Therefore, the addition is restricted to Rs. (63,63,000 - 19,50,000) i.e. ₹ 44,13,000/-. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material and finding given by the impugned order as well as various documents filed in the paper book on record including several bank statements for the impugned assessment year. The additions made on account of deposit made by the assessee in the bank account from the period 10.11.2015 to 13.12.2016 for sums aggregating ₹ 63,63,000/- in the following manner:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake of ready reference is reproduced as under:- 8. Thus, Ld. Counsel submitted that looking to the peculiar facts of the assessee's case and in the habit of withdrawing the money and keeping in the form of cash at home cannot be doubted. When the Govt. announced the demonetisation, the cash kept by him over a period of time has been deposited in the bank account and the entire source is from the money withdrawn by him from his own bank account from time to time. 9. The ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT (Appeals) and submitted that the amount which assessee had withdrawn before the demonetisation, i.e. from 1.04.2016 to 9.11.2016 already the ld. CIT (Appeals) has given benefit. It is improbable that money withdrawn years ago has been kept in the form of cash and suddenly on the day of demonetisation assessee had to deposit the said amount. Such explanation without any proper material to support cannot be accepted. 10. We have heard the rival submissions. After considering the facts and material on record and on perusal of the bank statement, we find that the assessee had been making huge withdrawals from time t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
