9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following additions to the returned income. Fin Year Totar Cash withdrawals from Bank A/c Cash used for Household/ personal purposes Cash Saved and kept in house used for redeposit in Bank A/c as per the Appellant Savings out of cash drawn estimated by the AO Addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) - 2015-16 9,75,000 5,75,000 4,00,000 2,50,000 3,96,000 (646000-250000) 2016-17 3,97,500 1,51,500 2,46,000 Total 13,72,500 7,26,500 6,46,000 2,50,000 3,96,000 2) Because the following observations of the learned CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi in the order U/s 250 of the IT Act, are arbitrary, baseless and misleading: i) No person in his right mind will keep on continuously withdrawing cash from his Bank Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained these cash deposits as follows (i) Return of cash loan by his brother-in-law Rs. 5,00,000/- (ii) Cash deposited out of his personal savings arising from the salary income during the F.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 Rs. 6,46,000/- Total Rs. 11,46,000/- 2.1 The A.O. accepted the assessee's contention regarding the cash loan returned by his brother-in-law amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, regarding the balance amount of Rs. 6.46.000/-, the assessee's explanation was as follows : S. No. F.Y. Gross Salary (Rs.) Total amount withdrawn in cash from Bank Account (Rs.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t frequently which means the amounts are utilised for the purpose for which it was drawn. On the other hand, possibility of cash in hand out of the withdrawals cannot be ruled out. Therefore, looking at the profile of the assessee in terms of salary drawn, cash drawn from Bank account, online payments made for drawing and other expenses, it can be concluded that the assessee might have been left with a cash of Rs. 2.50,000/- out of the withdrawals from the Bank accounts. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has failed to explain the source and nature for the cash deposited to the extent of Rs. 3,96,000/- (Rs. 6,46,000/- minus Rs. 2.50,000/).". Accordingly, the AO added Rs. 3,96,000/- as unexplained money in assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee taking the steps to file the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld. DR strongly objected the admission of appeal by the Tribunal since there was inordinate delay of 282 days. 6. I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. This past-Covid period delay need not be explained in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA No. 29 of 2022 in MA 665 of 2021 in suo moto WP(C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.1.2022, wherein held that "in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded". Further, extended upto 90 days from 1.3.2022. There was a delay in this case for 282 days whereas 238 days was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought on evidence by the AO that the assessee is left with only Rs. 2.5 lakhs out of Rs. 13,72,500/- withdrawn by assessee from various bank accounts. Unless and until the AO brought on record any material that assessee has spent balance amount of Rs. 11,22,500/-, which has been withdrawn in earlier financial year 2015-16 & 2016-17, it is not possible to hold that the said amount is not available to assessee to redeposit into bank account. Considering the quantum of withdrawals made by the assessee in earlier financial years, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 3.96 lakhs addition sustained by the AO has been sourced by the earlier withdrawals and due credit to be given. Accordingly, considering the meagre amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
