9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mrs. Sharmila .R and appellant jointly. The said cash deposits of Rs.40,23,500/- was considered in the hands of Mrs. Sharmila .R. The action of CIT(A) amounts to double taxation 4. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to enhance the income of Rs.40,23,500/, which was not considered by the A.O and also which was not before the A.O. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income of Rs.40,23,500/- when it was brought notice by the A.O in his remand report and not considered by the A.O in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining/ enhancing the addition even though on similar evidences for the same assessment year in case of appellant's wife was deleted by her predecessor. This action of the Hon'ble CIT(A) was gross violation of principal of consistency. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not considering the co-relation established by the appellant between receipts of rental security deposits and cash deposits in the bank on the ground that the deposits of previous year or previous months shall not be taken a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order of the Assessing Officer, the Appellant preferred an appeal in case of Appellant as well as his wife's case by making a prayer u/r 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidences in the form of rental agreements wherein, rental security deposits were received to the tune of Rs. 1,54,00,000/-. Out of which, the Appellant as well as his wife deposited in the bank a/c during the year 2014-15, amounting to Rs. 1,46,67,950/- in case of the Appellant Rs.1,07,72,650/- and in wife's case Rs. 40,95,300/-. 7. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-6, has allowed the appeal of the wife on the basis of the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer but whereas in case of the Appellant, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-6 enhanced the addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by enhancing from Rs.13,90,830/- to Rs.1,07,72,650/-. 7.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the Appellant filed appeal before us. 8. The Ld.AR submitted that additional evidences filed u/r 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were produced before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in the form of additional evidence to support the contention of the Appellant. Total refundable security deposit received by the Appellant and his wife was more than Rs. 1,12,50,000/- out of which Rs. 40,95,300/- was deposited in the account of his wife Smt. Sharmila R and Rs. 69,54,150/- deposited in the account of the Appellant. The CIT(Appeals) in her order, in spite of the Assessing Officer's submission that the source to the extent of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- stands explained, enhanced the income only on the basis of previous year income and previous month income cannot be considered for depositing in the bank in succeeding year/month. 12. The Ld.AR submitted that there is no law that previous year income or previous month income cannot be considered for depositing in the bank in the succeeding year/month and also there is no law that the Appellant should not have accounted cash balance in hand for any no: of days/months/year. Hence, the action of the CIT(Appeals) is against the provisions of law and against the fact of the case. He relied on the order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in case of Baijit Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the withdrawals made were for the purpose of business and thus, were not available for redeposit back in the bank account. In the said circumstances, claim of re-deposit after a gap of 2-3 months was held to be not possible. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that there is no such allegation. No evidence has been made available by the Revenue to support the possibly unarticulated suspicion that the funds have been utilised elsewhere. Accordingly, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. The addition sustained is directed to be deleted." 13. He submitted that on the same set of evidences and for the same A.Y, the addition in case of the Appellant's wife was deleted but in the Appellant's case it is sustained and enhanced. Hence, the department is not supposed to take divergent stand on the same set of evidences for the same A.Y, wherein facts and source of income are same and similar. Hence, the CIT(Appeals) violated the principal of consistency which leads to multiplicity of appeals. 14. The Ld.DR submitted that after taking into account the total cash deposits received by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal agreements dated 28/02/2015 totalling Rs.14,00,000/- but the cash deposits on that date were only Rs.1,30,000/-. Hence these rental agreements cannot be used to explain the cash deposits earlier in the month totalling to Rs.8,62,300/-. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case, the assessee deposited Rs.1,07,72,650 to various bank accounts from 10.2.2014 to 21.3.2015. During this period, the assessee received rental deposits from various tenants to the tune of Rs.1,54,00,000. The assessee explained that the said amount of Rs.1,07,72,650 was sourced by receipt of rent deposits. According to the CIT(Appeals), there is a long time gap between the receipt of rent deposits and corresponding deposits into various bank accounts. For clarity, we reproduce the receipt and deposit of rent details and deposits to bank accounts as follows:- Cash Flow Statement of Rental Advance received in cash and deposited in the bank for period From 01-02-2014 to 21-03-2015 Date Particulars Rental Deposit in Cash Received Cash Deposited Cash in Hand 01-02-2014 Jatin S Seth 3,00,000.00 3,00,000.00 01-02-2014 Fayaz CM 8,00,000.00 &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank Ltd-1221 3,00,000.00 86,74,250.00 05-09-2014 TGMC Bank Ltd-1221 1,00,000.00 85,74,250.00 05-09-2014 TGMC Bank Ltd-1221 1,50,000.00 84,24,250.00 08-09-2014 Vijaya Bank 10,000.00 84,14,250.00 09-092014 TGMC Bank Ltd-1221 75,000.00 83,39,250.00 11-09-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 24,000.00 83,15,250.00 17-09-2014 TGMC Bank Ltd-1221 3,50,000.00 79,65,250.00 19-09-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 30,250.00 79,35,000.00 11-10-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 16,00,000.00 63,35,000.00 16-10-2014 Vijaya Bank 2,00,000.00 61,35,000.00 18-10-2014 Abdul Rahim 7,00,000.00 68,35,000.00 21-10-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 10,000.00 68,25,000.00 21-10-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 2,05,000.00 66,20,000.00 05-11-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 50,000.00 65,70,000.00 18-11-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 30,250.00 65,39,750.00 12-12-2014 Vijaya Bank 50,000.00 64,89,750.00 17-12-2014 Punjab & sind Bank 65,000.00 64,24,750.00 27-12-2014 Vijaya Bank 49,000.00 63,75,750.00 30-12-2014 Vijaya Bank 18,000.00 63,57,750.00 31-12-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013¬14 and the cash deposits in the bank in F.Y. 2014-15. ii) After taking into account the additional cash deposits of Rs.40,23,500/- and the fresh set of rental agreements submitted, it can be observed that the total rental deposits received in the month of June 2014 was Rs.25,50,000/- and the total cash deposits during the same month were Rs.21,80,250/-. iii) After taking into consideration the 2 new rental agreements submitted, it is seen that in the month of August 2014 the total rental deposits received was Rs.45,50,000/- while the total cash deposits during the same month were Rs.20,47,500/-. iv) There were no rental security deposits received during the month of September but there are cash deposits of Rs.10,39,250/-. v) There is only one rental agreement for Rs.7,00,000/- in October 2014 but there are cash deposits of Rs.20,15,000/-. vi) There were no rental security deposits received in November and December 2014 or in January 2015 but there were cash deposits of Rs. 80,250/-, Rs.3,82,000/- and Rs.10,79,000/- in each of these months respectively. vi) There were cash deposits totalling Rs.9,92,300/- in February 2015. There were two rental agreements dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
