9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant case has given a credit of Rs.2,50,000/- only and made the addition of Rs.4,72,523/- by treating the past withdrawals from the Bank A/c as not available to the assessee. However, nothing has been brought on record that the assessee had spent any huge amount for acquisition of any asset or for performing of any functions such as marriage etc., in the family by spending huge money. Therefore, in our opinion, there is some force in the argument of assessee that the part of Rs.9,94,862/- which was withdrawn from the Bank in the past two years will be available to the assessee for making the deposit of Rs.7,60,000/- during the demonetization period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A)-NFAC, are not justified in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has made cash deposit of Rs.11,14,477/- in her savings bank a/c maintained with State Bank of Hyderabad. On being asked by the Assessing Officer to explain the source of such deposit, the assessee replied that the cash deposit relates to the past savings and part of the amount received from sundry debtors and loans and advances and submitted a list of persons with name their addresses and against their names the amounts were reported. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits along with relevant documentary evidence. The assessee submitted confirmation letters from all the persons mentioned in the list provided earlier which amount to Rs.3,54,477/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the appellant has made cash deposit soon after the demonetization. One of the purposes of demonetization was to flush out unaccounted cash. In this background the income tax dept. had conducted many enquiries in cases where, cash was found to be deposited in bank accounts. In her submission the appellant has tried to explain the source of cash as coming out of the past savings and partly out of realization of loan and advances. AO has demonstrated that the explanation is not acceptable. On this issue the AO has made the following remarks On perusal of the bank account submitted by her it is noticed that all withdrawals are small withdrawals only. There are no major withdrawals seen in her bank account. These small withdrawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.4,72,523/- made by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and retired employee deriving income from pension and income from other sources. He submitted that the assessee during the demonetization period had deposited an amount of Rs. 11,14,477/- in her savings bank a/c maintained with State Bank of Hyderabad out of which the Assessing Officer accepted the amount of Rs.3,54,477/- being the amount obtained from various persons to whom the assessee had given loans and advances. So far as the balance amount of Rs.7,22,523/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer allowed only Rs.2,50,000/- as available to the assessee, alth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the orders of the AO and the CIT (A)-NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me by both sides. I find the AO in the instant case made addition of Rs.4,72,523/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act out of the cash deposit of Rs.11,14,477/- made by the assessee as cash deposit in the Bank A/c during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that the assessee could not explain satisfactorily the source of Rs.4,72,523/- According to the Assessing Officer, the explanation of the assessee that the earlier withdrawal of Rs.9,94,862/- during the financial years 2013-14 to 2016-17 is available for deposit and Rs.7,60,000/- is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc., in the family by spending huge money. Therefore, in my opinion, there is some force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the part of Rs.9,94,862/- which was withdrawn from the Bank in the past two years will be available to the assessee for making the deposit of Rs.7,60,000/- during the demonetization period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (A)-NFAC, in my opinion, are not justified in accepting only Rs.2,50,000/- as available and thereby sustaining the balance amount of Rs.4,72,523/-. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete addition made him. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 11. In the result, appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
