2024 (2) TMI 1517

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by way of paper book, in the submissions made before the CIT(A) the assessee tried to explain the cash deposit in the bank account, however such explanation is not accepted either by the CIT(Appeal) as well as the Tribunal. Decided against assessee.
Honourable Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia And Honourable Mr. Justice Niral R. Mehta For the Appellant(s) No. 1 : Mr Pa Jadeja For the Appellant(s) No. 1 : Mr Sudhir M Mehta For the Opponent(s) No. 1 : Mrs Kalpana K Raval ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sudhir M.Mehta for the appellant. 2. By this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the appellant assessee has proposed the following question of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeal) held as under: "6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 24.80 lacs by taking view that the only source of income shown by the assessee is agriculture income, which may have been used for house hold purpose. The assessee failed to give any satisfactory explanation and evidence of cash deposit, so cash deposit of Rs. 24.80 lacs was treated as unexplained income. The Id CIT(A) confirmed the addition by holding that source of cash deposit is not explained. Further cash flow summary cannot be relied as the assessee has not furnished .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sons in support of such findings. It was submitted that the assessee has also placed on record, the details of the sufficient cash balance in the hands of the assessee for deposit in the bank account, however the same is ignored by all the three authorities and therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer is without any basis and therefore the same ought to have been quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. 8. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that the assessee has failed to offer any explanation for the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee in the month of February and March 2015. 9. The Tribunal after considering the submissions has also given relief of Rs. 2,80,000/- and made addition of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X