9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under law. To meet the ends of justice, we deem fit that the case be remitted to the file of the AO to verify the same by providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain its case and then complete the assessment in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO by producing all the necessary evidences before him. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee is partly allowed. - I.T.A. No.345/Rjt/2018 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2022 - Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Written Submission For the Respondent : Shri B. D. Gupta, Ld. DR ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. 3. Aggrieved against the same assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings the assessee filed a written submission explaining the cash deposits made in the joint account. The Ld. CIT(A) call for a remand report from the AO. The AO replied that the assessee s explanation that 2.5 lakh is a opening balance as on 03.04.2006 and the remaining 12 lakh that four members as joint holders of the bank account have deposited of 3 lakh each is not acceptable, since the assessee has not produced any supporting evidence that the cash of Rs. 3 lakh each pertaining to the four persons. The source of cash from where they had such cash was not explained. This is only an afterthought process, as the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kindly be accepted. 5.1. Thus, the addition of Rs.14,50,000/- is made erroneously. In the case of Smt. Dayaben Dhankecha and Jyotsanaben Dhankecha the concern Ld. A.O. has accepted this contention and has made addition of Rs.3,00,000/- in the respective cases. Copy of the assessment order passed in the case of these persons are submitted here with it is therefore prayed That the addition made of Rs.14,50,000/- being unlawful and although bank authority does not support the same, made by the Ld. A.O. needs deletion. 5.2. The Ld. A.O. has not made any comments nor objected with cogent reason on this issue and therefore the submissions made in this para may by assessee kindly be accepted. 6.1. As regards deposit of Rs. 3,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by assessee may kindly be accepted. 7.1. Thus on 27-3-2007 assessee Shri Pravinbhai deposites Rs.3,00,000/- the source of this Rs.3,00,000/- is also available in the bank account submitted here with. As mentioned in para 6.1 above the assessee has deposited Rs.2,50,000/- on 29-9-2006, Thus as on that date he was having balance of Rs.2,51,169/-. From this amount he withdrawan Rs.1,00,000/- on 3-10-2006 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 4-10-2006. Thus total withdrawal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which he has redeposited in his bank account on 27-3-2007 of Rs.3,00,000/-. The balance difference of Rs.50,000/-is also from the saving made during the year and having cash on hand and thus this Rs.3,00,000/-is also stands explained together with evidence of ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... story particularly when no such explanation was furnished before the Assessing Officer. In view of the above discussion addition of Rs. 5.50 lakh is confirmed and balance addition of Rs. 9 lakh is deleted. Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the same assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 5,50,000/-. The addition needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- based on position which he described and considered erroneously. The addition needs deletion. 3. The Ld. CIT9A) has erred in law and facts in confirming addition of Rs. 5,50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t re-deposit done after five months is too farfetching. Similarly the claim of deposit on 03.04.2006 of Rs. 3,00,000/- were out of early withdrawal merely as a story that no such explanation was made by the assessee, before the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) being the First Appellate Authority and co-terminated authority has simply not considered the explanation and rejected the same as mere story by the assessee. The assessee further submitted the admission of deposit made on 03.04.2006 deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- which itself an evidence that within only two days of the Financial Year. It is already proof in other person cases, the same amount has been suffered to tax. Therefore, the matter be restored to the file of the AO for proper verification. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
