9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire exercise is based on surmises and approximations, the resultant unexplained cash deposit of ₹ 3 lacs odd out of total cash deposits of ₹ 32,08,000/-, being barely 10% of the same is too immaterial to be treated as cash deposit remaining unexplained. We therefore hold that there was no case at all for making any addition on account of unexplained cash deposits. The addition therefore made ₹ 12,83,200/- is accordingly directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 865/Ahd/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-3-2022 - Ms. Annapurna Gupta , Accountant Member And Shri Mahavir Prasad , Judicial Member For the Appellant : Vimal D. Shukla , A. R. For the Respondents : N. J. Vyas , Sr. D. R. ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta , Accountant Member The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 01-03-2019, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act ) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009-10. 2. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition made on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the date on which the cash of ₹ 50,000/- was deposited) and ₹ 1,90,000/- on 11.04.2008 and further amount of ₹ 10,000/- on 14.04.2008. Then, on the next date i.e. 15.04.2008, he deposited the cash of ₹ 1,20,000/- and withdrawn ₹ 80,000/- within 4 days. Thus, this frequent withdrawals and cash deposited continued throughout the year. The total credits in this bank has been reported at ₹ 55,13,218. 01. including nominal bank interest of ₹ 1,938/- as identified by the A.O. in the assessment order. The credits on account of cash deposited on this bank account (as per appellant's version) were of ₹ 32,08,000/- meaning thereby, there were credits of ₹ 23,03,280/- made through cheques. The appellant has disclosed, the contract receipts of ₹ 6,15,249/- and his father Shri Lalbhai P. Patel has disclosed the contract receipts of ₹ 15,56,340/- totalling to ₹ 21,51,589/-. Thus, there is short-fall of ₹ 1,51,691/-- which still remained to be explained. Further, it is highly improbable that the cash withdrawn was again credited in the same bank account within short period and no payments for the expenses retainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the cash was found deposited, was a joint account of the assessee with his father (ii) both were in the business of contractors and had returned income from the same to tax on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD of the Act by applying the rate of 8% on the gross receipts reflecting profits of ₹ 49,220/- and ₹ 6,15,249/- in relation to turnovers of ₹ 1,24,507/- and 15,56,340//- by the assessee and his father respectively. (iii) that these incomes had been accepted by the A.O. both in case of his father in scrutiny assessment and in the case of the assessee also. (iv) that the cash deposits were therefore not entirely attributable to the assessee alone. (v) that in any case the cash withdrawals from the account far exceeded cash deposited, being 45,95,940/- as against deposits of 32,08,000/- and the deposits therefore could be entirely attributable to the withdrawals. (vi) that the Ld. CIT(A) while restricting the addition to 40% of the cash deposited had stated the reason for the same as 60% of the withdrawals being reasonably sufficient for utilizing in his business and personal purposes. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted fact that the bank account in which the cash was deposited was a joint account of the assessee with his father. That both were in the business of contractors and had returned income on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD of the Act @ 8% net profit on business receipts of ₹ 6,15,250/- and ₹ 15,56,338/- respectively, which has been accepted in scrutiny assessment by the Revenue. Ld. DR was unable to controvert the above facts before us. 7.1. Considering the aforesaid facts, we fail to understand how the entire cash deposited has been/could be attributable to that belonging to the assessee alone particularly when no reason has been given by the Revenue for doing so. Noting that the admitted business receipts of the assessee and his father were to the extent of ₹ 6,15,250/- and ₹ 15,56,338/- i.e. in the ratio of 1: 2.5, it would be reasonable to attribute the cash deposits in the said bank account in the same ratio, applying which the cash deposits attributable to the assessee at the most comes to ₹ 9,16,500/- (32,08,00 x 1/3.5). The addition in any case of unexplained cash deposits, we hold, could not have exceeded ₹ 9,16,500/- 8. Going further w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
