9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han ₹ 3 lakhs and only then the payment of cash to the assessee can be justified. In coming to this conclusion, they have ignored the fact that the HUF had declared income in the past and did not doubt the availability of accumulated cash from past savings - Addition of ₹ 3 lakhs being cash received from HUF cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted. Upendranath has acknowledged having paid a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs to the assessee on 10.11.2016 by cash. Upendranath has been filing his Return of Income and the copy of Return of Income filed by him for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2019-20 have been filed before the lower authorities. These facts have been overlooked by the Revenue authorities. Identity of Upe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The source of funds for cash deposit to the extent of ₹ 22 lakhs received from assessee s father and two sisters of ₹ 13 lakhs, ₹ 4 lakhs and ₹ 5 lakhs was accepted by the AO. The AO did not accept the explanation of source of cash from Shri. Narayan Iyengar HUF (hereinafter referred to as HUF) of ₹ 3 lakhs and from Shri. Upendra, brother of the assessee of a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs. Mr Upendranath s name has been wrongly referred to by the AO in the Order of Assessment as K. S. Vasundhra. 4. With regard to the receipt of cash of ₹ 3 lakhs by the assessee from HUF, the assessee filed a confirmation from M. S. Narayana Iyengar, Kartha of the HUF, that a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs is given by the HUF to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terated the stand of the assessee as put forth before the CIT(A). I find that the AO disbelieved receipt of cash from the HUF on the ground that the income of HUF declared for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 was not sufficient to prove the gift of ₹ 3 lakhs given by the HUF. The AO also mentioned that the HUF did not respond to the notice by the AO under section 133(6) of the Act which is not correct and a reply was filed by the HUF on 13.09.2019 reiterating the fact that the HUF has given ₹ 3 lakhs cash as gratis. The AO and CIT(A) in our opinion proceeded on the basis that the current year s income should have been more than ₹ 3 lakhs and only then the payment of cash of ₹ 3 lakhs to the assessee can be justif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee cannot be accepted. As the loan given could not be established, repayment of loan amount as explanation for cash deposit cannot be accepted. Further, assessee could not prove the identity of Sri Upendranath as to evidence of that person existing nor the actual details of transaction (except for photo copy of undated letter) is given. No reply was received for 133(6) issued to Sri Upendranath. Therefore, the amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- cash deposit in her bank A/c explained as loan repayment from Sri Upendranath is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit. 10. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO for the very same reasons. On this aspect, I find that Upendranat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
