9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other purpose than the deposit into various bank accounts. The assessee might have kept the rent deposits received in the form of cash with him and deposited the same into various bank accounts at a later date. It is quite possible that the assessee might have kept the rent deposits received in the form of cash for some purpose and the same remains to be utlised for one reason or the other and the cash balance continued to remain with him for a long period. Later, the assessee deposited into various bank accounts. Some times it may also happen that cash balance with the assessee continues to remain as cash balance even for many months and sometimes received by the assessee might be on the same day. All these probable aspects of the matter cannot be simply ignored or brushed aside. The fact remains that the cash rental deposits have been received by the assessee which is not at all disputed and usage of the same for deposits into various bank accounts cannot be rejected outrightly. Considering all the cash deposit into various bank accounts made by the assessee on various dates should be reasonably presumed that it is from the cash rental deposits received by the assessee on va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the law to hold the accounted cash in hand for any number of days or months. 7. For these and other reasons which may be adduced at the time of hearing, Your Honour is requested to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained and enhanced by CIT(A) for substantial cause of justice. 8. The appellant craves leaves, to add, to alter, to amend and to delete any other grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant and his wife Smt. Sharmila R are assessed to tax in the office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(2), Bangalore. For the A.Y 2015-16, Appellant's as well as his wife Smt. Sharmila R's case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of large cash deposits in savings bank a/c and to purchase the property during the year in the Appellant's case. 3. In consequence of the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-appearance of the Appellant before the Assessing Officer due to his busy schedule in politics. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that there were cash deposits in the following acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Since the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer submitted the remand report without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant wherein he has admitted the source for the cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-(as per remand report Rs. 87,00,000/- + Rs. 18,00,000/- mistake committed by the Assessing Officer as he has taken Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 20,00,000/- in case of Syed Arif Pasha) and said that Rs. 30,50,000/- [which could be Rs. 7,50,000/-] and additional cash deposit Rs. 40,23,500/- stands remained unexplained. It means that the deposit amounting to Rs. 1,05,00,000/- has been explained. Inspite of that, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) enhanced the income, 20% of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 Singh, Ludhiana in ITA No.986/CHD/2018 on the similar fact of the case wherein held that in Para 5.1 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- 5.1 On a consideration thereof, I find that in the facts of the present case, the availability of funds for re-depositing in the said bank accounts has been consistently well addressed. No evidence rebutting the claim is available on record. I find myself in agreement with the submissions advanced by the Id. AR that how would naming a property identified for a purported purchase or a person with whom there was an oral Agreement, make the claim more plausible. The law permits oral agreements and the tax authorities insistence in the circumstances to produce a written Agreement to Sell admittedly is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, 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 and the balance Rs.69,54,150/- was deposited in the assessee s bank account. According to Ld.DR, the assessee explained that it was deposit out of cash deposits received from security deposit received from various tenants. It is submitted that there was a long gap between the receipt of amount and deposit into various Bank A/cs. On this account, it cannot be said that security deposit is source to deposit into Bank A/cs. which cannot be considered as the assessee has explained source of deposits. It cannot be said that the assessee had kept the security deposit received from tenants and it was deposited into bank account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... responding 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 11,00,000.00 01-02-2014 Syed Irian 4,00,000.00 15,00,000.00 22-02-2014 Mohamed Owis 8,00,000.00 23,00,000.00 27-03-2014 Mohammed Wahid 8,00,000.00 31,00,000.00 27-03-2014 Syed Arif Pasha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 750.00 01-08-2014 Meharaj Begum 3,50,000.00 68,21,750.00 05-08-2014 Aminabi 8,00,000.00 76,21,750.00 05-08-2014 TGMC Bank Ltd-1221 6,50,000.00 69,71,750.00 06-08-2014 Punjab Sind Bank 24,000.00 69,47,750.00 07-08-2014 Punjab Sind Bank 33,000.00 69,14,750.00 09-08-2014 Punjab Sind Bank 23,000.00 68,91,750.00 10-08-2014 Fayaz CM 10,00,000.00 78,91,750.00 12-08-2014 Punjab Sind Bank 24,000.00 78,67,750.00 14-08-2014 M V Co-operative Bank 10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mohamed Idris Sadath 7,00,000.00 54,86,450.00 10-03-2015 M V Co-operative Bank 6,000.00 54,80,450.00 13-03-2015 TGMC Bank Ltd.-6785 4,50,000.00 50,30,450.00 16-03-2015 Punjab Sind Bank 8,4000.00 50,22,050.00 19-03-2015 Punjab Sind Bank 16,700.00 50,05,350.00 20-03-2015 Punjab Sind Bank 9,000.00 49,96,350.00 24-03-2015 Punjab Sind Bank 1,09,000.00 48,87,350.00 28-03-2015 M V Co-operative Bank 2,60,000.00 46,27,350.00 1,54,00,000.00 1,07,72,650.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gap between these two. However, the fact is that the assessee actually received rent deposits from various parties to the tune of Rs.1.54 crores and out of this, an amount of Rs.40,95,300 has been given credit towards the deposits in assessee s wife s bank account. However, the CIT(Appeals) has not accepted that the balance of Rs.1,08,00,000 is available to the assessee to deposit the same into the bank account of the assessee at Rs.1,07,72,650. The lower authorities have not brought on record any evidence to show that these rental deposits of Rs.1,08,00,000 have been used by the assessee for any other purpose or used to deposit in any other bank account. Thus, it cannot be said that these rental deposits received from various tenants were used for assessee s personal purpose or any other investment purpose. In such circumstances, it cannot be disputed that the rent deposits received from various tenants have been used by the assessee for any other purpose than the deposit into various bank accounts. The assessee might have kept the rent deposits received in the form of cash with him and deposited the same into various bank accounts at a later date. It is quite possible that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
