9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee, keeping aside other relevant evidences, which clearly reveal that the mother of the assessee had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50 lakh from her bank account and the impugned three deposits have been made to the same bank account by her mother out of the amount withdrawn earlier. CIT(A) was not correct and justified in confirming the addition of Rs.6,70,000/- in the hands of the assessee by taking cognizance of an agreement to sell dated 27.08.2009 which was not accepted by the assessee, but, was accepted by the mother of the assessee - CIT(A) has misinterpreted the relevant documentary evidence relied by the assessee and, therefore, part addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) is also not sustainable and the AO is directed to delete the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the assessee on the other side the appellant had submitted before the Ld. CIT (A) that bank deposits were not related to him. Hence it is prayed addition may kindly be set aside. 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee reiterated the written submissions and submitted that the impugned cash amount of Rs.17,73,000/- was deposited on different dates by the mother of the assessee and not by the assessee. The ld. Counsel also submitted that since the assessee did not have any source of income, no return of income was filed for the year under consideration. Further, drawing our attention to cash flow statement, the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee withdrew Rs.50 lakh cash from the same bank account on 15.01.2009 and there was a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made as the assessee s mother successfully demonstrated that the source of cash deposit to her bank account was sale proceeds of agricultural land sold during the year under consideration which was situated at village Kabulpur and since the said land was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act, no capital gain tax was leviable thereon and the AO has accepted the return of income of assessee s mother. 6. On careful consideration of the above submissions, I am of the considered opinion that undisputedly, the assessee and his mother are having a joint bank account, copy of which clearly reveals that there was a withdrawal of Rs.50 lakh on 15.01.2009. The three amounts picked up by the AO for making addition in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of the assessee, keeping aside other relevant evidences, which clearly reveal that the mother of the assessee had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50 lakh from her bank account and the impugned three deposits have been made to the same bank account by her mother out of the amount withdrawn earlier. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was not correct and justified in confirming the addition of Rs.6,70,000/- in the hands of the assessee by taking cognizance of an agreement to sell dated 27.08.2009 which was not accepted by the assessee, but, was accepted by the mother of the assessee. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has misinterpreted the relevant documentary evidence relied by the assessee and, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the part addition sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
