9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the assessee has not produced any evidence on balance amount of Rs. 96,000/-. CIT(A) has given a sustainable finding for confirming the entire cash deposit to the bank account of the assessee. It cannot be ignored that the assessee and her family members jointly own 25 acres of fertile land in the State of Haryana and her husband also runs an enterprise related to the agricultural activities. The statement of the son of the assessee Shri Mohit clearly reveals that the amount of more than Rs. 15 lakh was received out of sale of one crop and household expenses were met from the other agricultural income and income from the firm. Thus the CIT(A) has gone wrong in dismissing the explanation of the assessee as well as remand report of the AO at the threshold by merely alleging the same as afterthought and self serving. Therefore, impugned first appellate order is set aside. As clear that before the AO, during remand proceedings, the assessee could not produce any sustainable evidence regarding part amount of Rs. 1,96,779/-. Except this, the AO found the explanation of the assessee and all relevant evidences in order and, therefore, safely presume that the assessee could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of provision of section 153 of the Act is only that the order should be made within the prescribed time limit. There is no requirement of serving copy of the order or receipt of order by the assessee within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, in view of the admission of the assessee in the grounds that the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 was received by the brother of the assessee on 31.01.2019, ground No. 1 of the assessee being devoid of merit is dismissed. Ground No. 2 4. Apropos ground No. 2, 1 observe that the main contention of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) is legally and factually erred in making the addition of the entire deposit of Rs. 17,01,000/- by not properly considering the remand report of the AO. It is also contended that all the cash deposits were explained before the AO, but, even after that the order was passed that the explanation of the assessee is afterthought. From the statement of facts and other material on record along with assessment as well as first appellate order, it is amply clear that the assessee, during the appellate proceedings, submitted the following written submissions/reply:- ........ ......... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed a.m. present's home and not serviced at my home, Non-compliance was unintentional . Later on the assessee vide his written submission dated 1.06.2019 requested that the ground No. 1 mentioned in the written submission filed earlier may kindly be ignored and it's sufficient for the assessee if a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. 5. The copy of the above written submissions was forwarded to the AO by the Ld. CIT(A) and, in his remand report dated 08.07.2019, the AO reported as under:- ........ ......... 3.1 In response to the said letter, the assessee sought adjournment through her counsel again and again. On 01.07.2019, the son of the assessee Sh. Mohit attended the office along with Sh. Pawan girdhar, ITP counsel of the assessee and filed documents as required inter alia produced books of account of the Firm M/s. Shri Guru Nanak Traders, 52-A, Anaj Mandi, Uklana and stated that her family owns 26 acres of agricultural land which is fertile and having good agriculture income. Further, stated that the income derived from agriculture activities were kept in the firm's account M/s. Guru Nanak Traders where here husba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. no. Name and relation of the assessee Date Amount withdrawn Total 1. Sh. Madan lal Bhutani ( Spouse) 29.04.2010 16.07.2010 18.07.2010 20.07.2010 25347 300000 200000 65800 591147/- 2. Mohit(son) 14.04.2010 20.07.2010 21.07.2010 30370 200000 350000 580370/- 3. Ankit (son) 15.04.2010 18.07.2010 2 0.07.2010 21.07.2010 15012 250000 220000 57241 552433/- Actual) 3,52,433/- shown by AO Actual Total 17,23,950/- Hence mistake is apparent from the records, it's therefore requested that the appeal may kindly be allowed and oblige. It's further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the year under consideration. Regarding household expenses, it was also explained by the son of the assessee Shri Mohit that the said withdrawal is out of earning of one crop and the family expenses are being borne out from agricultural income and income from the firm run by his father Shri Madan Lai Bhutani. It was also submitted by the son of the assessee before the AO that the main reason to redeposit the funds in their mother's account was that her mother's nephew needed funds for business purposes. Copy of bank account was also submitted before the AO which revealed that the amount of Rs. 7 lakh was deposited on 27.02.2010 and Rs. 9,50,000/- was deposited on 21.07.2010. The AO also noted that the date of cash deposit is immediately after the date of withdrawal from the firm which comes to Rs. 15,23,950/- including cash of Rs. 70,729/- and the balance figure comes to Rs. 14,53,221/-. The AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, documentary evidence and statement of assessee's son, concluded that the assessee has not produced any evidence that the total cash deposit in the assessee's account is Rs. 11,65,000/- and the assessee could not pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a sustainable finding for confirming the entire cash deposit to the bank account of the assessee. It cannot be ignored that the assessee and her family members jointly own 25 acres of fertile land in the State of Haryana and her husband also runs an enterprise related to the agricultural activities. The statement of the son of the assessee Shri Mohit clearly reveals that the amount of more than Rs. 15 lakh was received out of sale of one crop and household expenses were met from the other agricultural income and income from the firm. In view of the foregoing discussion, I reach to a logical conclusion that the Ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in dismissing the explanation of the assessee as well as remand report of the AO at the threshold by merely alleging the same as afterthought and self serving. Therefore, impugned first appellate order is set aside. 11. However, I make it clear that before the AO, during remand proceedings, the assessee could not produce any sustainable evidence regarding part amount of Rs. 1,96,779/-. Except this, the AO found the explanation of the assessee and all relevant evidences in order and, therefore, I safely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
