9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee s explanation that the demonetized currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 2000/- available with the assessee as cash in hand were being deposited during the demonetization period. Thus the same cannot be treated as not properly explained by the assessee. As it can be seen from the bank statement, the source of withdrawal of the money is being clearly demonstrated and their deposit of money on various occasions is also established by the assessee through her bank account. The same cannot be doubted by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money. As relying on SHAILESHKUMAR RASIKLAL MEHTA [ 2013 (11) TMI 1600 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and MANOJ INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI [ 2014 (8) TMI 1042 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] we have no hesitation in allowing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book and Balance sheet as on 31.03.2017 wherein the opening balance of Rs. 12,98,000/- in the balance sheet. The assessee shown Rs. 50,00,000/- as opening balance from the Financial Year 2015-16 and the same was carried forward. The assessee submitted that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was from the cash withdrawn on 2.01.2014. Since the cash deposited is not explained properly one more show cause notice was issued on 01.12.2019 requesting the assessee to explain the above cash deposits. 2.2. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed an adjournment letter for one week. As there was no response from the assessee, the assessing officer held that the assessee has no further explanation to offer, regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 and subsequent deposits in the bank made the whole transactions suspicious in nature. The assessee has neither provided sufficient evidence for justification before the A.O. during the appellate proceeding. In-spite of opportunity given to the assessee, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of providing justifications in the books of accounts. The assessee being an individual having income from salary and other sources. The nature of activities of the assessee it is hard to understand, need for moving cash from one hand to other hand and movements of the cash from bank to book and vice-versa. Therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed and dismissed the assessee s appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 and Rs. 2,75,000/- on 15.11.2016 deposited in Bank being the demonetized currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- in denomination. The assessee also produced the salary income received through bank transactions from M/s. Ramesh Corporation. Thus the Ld. A.R. pleaded that the cash in hand was Old demonetized currency of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- in denomination have been remitted in the bank account during the Financial Year, for which the source is being properly explained by the assessee with ledger accounts, bank passbook and confirmations etc, therefore the same cannot be added as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and the addition is liable to be deleted. 5. In support of the same, the assessee relied upon the Jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod. Thus the same cannot be treated as not properly explained by the assessee. As it can be seen from the bank statement, the source of withdrawal of the money is being clearly demonstrated and their deposit of money on various occasions is also established by the assessee through her bank account. The same cannot be doubted by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money. 8. Further the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shaileshkumar Rasiklal Mehta cited above held as follows: The CIT(A) while deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer, it appears that on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that the additions made by the Assessing Officer routed through the Bank and the assessee explained the source of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther purpose. In the absence of such finding, addition is not justified. We find merit into the contention of the Id. counsel for the assessee that there is no dispute that the amount which was withdrawn by the assessee on various dates during the year 2006 was available with him for making deposits. In the absence of finding that the amount which was previously withdrawn by the assessee had been utilized for any other purpose merely on the basis of conjecture that the amount might have been utilized for any other-purpose and was not available with the assessee for making the deposits, we are unable to accept the reasoning of the authorities below. In our considered view, when the assessee has demonstrated that he had withdrawn cash from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
