9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Pritesh Shah, CA For the Revenue : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as CIT(A) ), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Karta of HUF who derived income from House Property and Income from Other Sources. The assessee filed his Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2017-18 on 11-08-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 5,73,170/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee in his Account with Bank of Baroda deposited a sum of Rs. 10,75,000/- during demonetization period and issued show cause notice to explain the above source of cash deposit. 2.1. The assessee replied the source of cash deposit in Bank of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than Rs. 10,000. The appellant claims that he has preserved the numerous withdrawals during last 3 years in his hand so as to deposit cash in the year under consideration. This argument of the appellant does not resemble normal human behavior. The law is well settled that the assessee can show earlier cash withdrawals from bank account as source of subsequent cash deposits unless the revenue is able to show that the cash so withdrawn is used for some other purposes. In this case 95% of the withdrawals are amounts less than Rs. 10,000. Common sense dictates that these cash withdrawals are for day to day expenses. Even though the appellant claims that day to day expenses are met from business income, there is no reason to believe that an individual who frequents bank, preserve all these drawings with himself for 3 years. If the appellant had so much of cash with him then what was the need of frequent withdrawals of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000. Nobody can prove the appellant's intentions other than himself but this is a clear instance where the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 can be applied where the Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance sheet of the assessee. Thus the Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s. 69A and also taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4.1. In this connection Ld. Counsel relied upon following case laws: 1 Gujarat High Court Rakeshkumar Babulal Agarwal v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - [2022] 136 taxmann.com 329 ; 286 Taxman 617 ; 448 ITR 133. 2 Indore ITAT Rahul Maheshwari V. ITO - ITA No.267/Ind/2023 [ 2024 ] Date of Pronouncement 15/01/2024. 3 Mumbai ITAT Ramchandra Kanu Mendadkar V. CIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 356 ; 201 ITD 492. 4 Amritsar ITAT Balwinder Kumar V. Income Tax Officer [2023] 151 taxmann.com 338; 102 ITR(T) 228. 5 Bangalore ITAT Shri Subhasa Poojari V. ITO (2022) TaxCorp (A.T.) 99218. 6 Bangalore ITAT SMT. Teena Bethala V. ITO (20 19) TaxCorp (A.T.) 77352. 7 Lucknow ITAT Shri Sunny Kapoor V. ITO (2022) TaxCorp (A.T.) 96724. 8 Visakhapat nam ITAT DCIT V. Sri Sriram Manchukonda (2021) TaxCorp (A.T.) 91806. 9 Chandigarh ITAT Ski Himalayas Ropeways Pvt Ltd. V. ACIT (2022) 64 CCH 0101 ChdTrib. 10 Ahmedabad ITAT Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker V. ITO 45 CCH 0388: 44 ITR 0135 11 Gujarat HC CIT V. Shailesh Rasiklal Mehta 76 CCH 1088 ; 176 Taxmann 0270. 12 Jodhpur ITAT Kri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Balance Sheet and further explained that rental income with appropriate TDS u/s. 194I of the Act which is clearly reflecting in Form 26AS records. The monthly rents were also deposited in bank accounts. Since the assessee is a Senior Citizen withdrawn and kept substantial balance in his bank accounts because of emergency medical needs. However after declaration of the demonetization period, the assessee deposited the so called withdrawal amounts from his bank account which has been offered for tax by filing regular Return of Income as well as deduction u/s. 194I of the Act. The Assessing Officer also erroneously treated as unexplained cash and also invoked Section 115BBE of the Act and charged at 60% rate which is not applicable to the present case since the above cash deposits were clearly reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Though, Ld. Counsel has relied upon various case laws, we find relevant case laws which are cash deposits during demonetization period wherein Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. 6.1. In the case of Balwinder Kumar-Vs-ITO reported in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 338 (Amritsar-Trib.) wherein it was held as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
