9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al from earlier occasion cannot be disregarded. CIT(A), without appreciating above facts has simply confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, we reverse findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete additions made towards cash deposits into City Union Bank account u/s.69 - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s out of cash withdrawals as well as income declared under the head 'income from other sources'. The Assessing Officer has examined case of the assessee in light of evidences filed during the course of assessment proceedings, including bank statements obtained from City Union Bank along with ledger extracts filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has accepted major cash deposits out of source from interest received on loans and loan repaid from M/s. Srinidhi Finance Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer had also accepted explanation of the assessee that previous cash withdrawals from very same bank account was used for deposits into bank account and wherever cash deposits are made within two to three days from date of withdrawal from very same bank account. But, in respect of cash deposits made beyond three days, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee has withdrawn higher amount and deposited lesser amount which means the assessee must have spent cash withdrawal from bank account for some other purposes. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rejected arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs.70,27,500/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows: 6. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer: 6.1 In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contested that the order of the Learned Assessing Officer is without Jurisdiction; the appellant is a Director of MIs. S V Global Mill Ltd and hence to be assessed by the Jurisdictional Officer of the said company as per the Circular issued by CBDT. 6.2 In the written submission the A.R stated that the jurisdiction of the appellant, being the director of M/s S V Global Mill Ltd lies with Corporate Circle-6(2) and hence the impugned assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corp. Circle 2(1) Chennai is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set-aside. 6.3 It is pertinent to mention here that the Assessment Order was passed not by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corp. Circle 2(1) Chennai but by the Income Tax Officer Non- Corp Ward-1(4), Chennai. Income Tax Officer Non-Corp Ward-1(4), Chennai received this case as per the Order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. This was stated by the Asssessing Officer in the first para of Assessment Order as under: "The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the AY 2017-18 and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thdrawals were made for purpose of business and same was not available for redeposit and assessee was unable to link cash withdrawn from bank to cash deposit, same would be held to be essessee's unexplained income.' Respectfully following the above stated decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana addition of Rs 70,27,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 is upheld." 6. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.5 of the assessee appeal is addition u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, towards cash deposits into City Union Bank account amounting to Rs.70,27,500/- as unexplained investments. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating fact that the assessee had explained cash deposits into bank account out of cash withdrawal from very same bank account in earlier occasion, which is evident from fact that the Assessing Officer has recorded factual finding that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,17,38,500/- and cash withdrawal to the tune of Rs.2,19,59,800/- from City Union Bank Ltd. The learned A.R further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not disputed fact that cash wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer and we ourselves do not subscribe to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for simple reason that when the Assessing Officer has accepted explanation of the assessee in respect of cash deposits into bank account out of cash withdrawals from very same bank account, wherever cash deposits are made within a period of 2 to 5 days, ought not to have made additions towards remaining cash deposits, when the assessee has explained source for cash deposits out of cash withdrawal from very same bank account, unless the Assessing Officer demonstrates that amount of withdrawal in earlier occasion has been used by the assessee for any other purposes. This legal principle is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kulwant Rai (supra), where an identical issue has been dealt by the Hon'ble High Court and held that no material has been relied upon by the Assessing Officer to support his view that entire cash withdrawal in earlier occasion must have been spent by the assessee for some purposes and the assessee would not have cash in hand for making deposit in subsequent dates. The ITAT.,Delhi Benches in the case of Gordhan Vs. ITO in ITA No.811/Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
