9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There cannot be any addition u/s 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposits made by the assessee into his bank account as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made under section 69A. Thus, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on quantum addition - Since the quantum addition is deleted, penalty levied on such quantum addition has no legs to stand. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as noticed that the assessee has deposited Rs. 8,00,000, in cash on 24/05/2010 in the Bank of India, which the assessee converted it into two fixed deposits of Rs. 4,00,000 each. The Assessing Officer sought explanation from the assessee and in response to which the assessee filed written submissions along with acknowledgment of filing of return of income, computation of income, copy of sale deed, copy of bank statement and other details, which were test checked by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, however, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and hence, he drew following conclusion: 1. The source of cash deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- has not been explained by the assessee. 2. The contention that the amount of Rs. 8,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee did not comply with the notice and no submissions were made in support of ground of appeal. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: 5.1 The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on merits. 6. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Assessing Officer. Even the assessee had also furnished the details of his income and expenditure incurred and such details are reproduced below for better appreciation of facts. Particulars Period Cash Flow Income From Farming 2006 2010 (98900 @5) 494500.00 Income From Kirana 2006 2010 (100000 @5) 500000.00 Total cumulative cash 994500.00 Less: Personal House hold withdrawal 300000.00 694500.00 Add: Cash received from sale of agricultural land 200000.00 894500.00 Add: Tailoring Receipt used in household expenses (60000@5) 300000.00 Total cash in hand (Opening) 1194500.00 10. From the above, it is clearly evident that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement of the Assessing Officer and there was no basis of making any addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
