9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016, there is a cash withdrawn of Rs.9,00,000/- on 13.12.2016 and for the lack of specific finding by the ld. AO as to whether the deposits between 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016 were in old currency or new currency, we give the benefit of doubt to the assessee and hold that the source of cash deposit of Rs.6,10,000/- between 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016 was the cash withdrawal made on 13.12.2016 and thus the addition for unexplained cash deposit u/s 69 is uncalled for on the said sum of Rs.6,10,000/-. So far as the remaining amount of Rs.9,31,000/-, considering the fact that the assessee is a housewife and she had kept certain savings for the purpose of treatment of her ailing husband undergoing Cancer Patient. We accept t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zation period i.e. 9th November, 2015 to 30th December, 2016. As far as the assessment proceedings vide dated 24.12.2019, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer treated the alleged cash deposit as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and assessed the income at Rs.15,41,000/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Since the assessee failed to make any submission in support of the grounds of appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer for unexplained cash deposit. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that initially the assessee received notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e immediately after the deposit of cash of Rs.15,41,000/- during the period 05.12.2016 to 13.12.2016, the assessee withdrew Rs.9,00,000/- on 13.12.2016 and again after deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- between 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016, she withdrew Rs.9,00,000/- on 16.12.2016 and for such withdrawal, no explanation has been filed. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant record placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved with the finding of ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the action of ld. Assessing Officer making addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.15,41,000/- during demonetization period. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a housewife and does not have any regular source of income and also did not file any retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Om Parkash Nahar (supra), the source of cash deposit was the consistent cash withdrawal by the assessee during the year in which the cash deposit was in dispute and also in the preceding year. This is also not the case of the assessee. In the case of Smt. Uma Agrawal (supra), the addition was for an amount of Rs.2,21,000/- and the Tribunal deleted the addition observing that it was below the taxable limit applicable for the individual. Therefore, all the three decisions cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable directly on the facts of the case before us and thus will not help the assessee. 10. However, considering the facts of the case, we notice that so far as the cash deposit of Rs.6,10,000/- made during the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
