9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit being cash deposits in bank account. 3. On the facts a nd circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the addition by taking the rate @77.25% by attracting S.115BBE instead of taxing as per normal tax slab. 4. Even otherwise on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retroactive manner by applying the duly substituted S.115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 33.54% as per the old provisions of S.115BBE. 5. It is therefore prayed that the above additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. The appeal filed by assessee is barred by 171 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the CIT(A) pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laring total income of Rs. 3,25,840/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted copy of 7/12, copy of agriculture income certificate, ledger copy of agriculture income and expenses and copy of bank statement. The Assessing Officer (in short, 'AO') also found that during the demonetization period there was cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- in his bank account. The AO noticed various discrepancies which is mentioned in the show cause notice as well as discussion at para 5.4 of assessment order. The AO observed that assessee has claimed to have made withdrawal of Rs. 19,50,000/- on 22.04.2016 Rs. 2,00,000/- on 25.05.2016 Rs. 5,00,000/- on 26.05.2016 and Rs. 17,90,000/- on 28.09.2016 from the DCB Bank and shown the same as the source of cash, which was utilized for making deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- during demonetization period. However, the said amounts were paid/debited to one Mr. Vijay J. Ramani. Hence, explanation of the assessee that these amounts were part of cash on hand was not accepted and he added Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, the ground No.1 is dismissed. 8. Ground No.2 is regarding addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account maintained with DCB Bank. The ld. AR submitted that the appellant was having cash balance of Rs. 24,17,978/- as on 07.11.2016. The assessee deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- on 22.11.2016. The assessee was having Rs. 22,79,843/- as cash on hand before the above deposit in the bank account. However, assessee had deposited only Rs. 10,00,000/-. It was also submitted that there was cash on hand of Rs. 9,61,570/- as on 31.03.2016. Even in the return of income for AY.2017-18, assessee has shown cash on hand of Rs. 8,26,157/- after deposit of the impugned cash during demonetization period. The ld. AR further submitted that assessee had explained that there was withdrawal of Rs. 17,90,000/- from the bank and the cash available before demonetization was out of opening cash balance, cash withdrawal from bank and income of the current year. The reason for making the addition was that the cash withdrawals by the assessee were debited in the name of Shri Vijay J. Ramani and hence cannot be taken as cash available with the assessee. In this regard, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name were issued to collect cash from the bank. The said cash withdrawal was available with the appellant and was part of the cash on hand before demonetization period. The appellant has not supported the above claim with supporting evidences. The amounts of withdrawal are substantial. The appellant has not filed confirmation or affidavit from Shri Vijay J. Ramani that he withdrew the impugned amounts in cash and gave it to the appellant. He has not confirmed that the amount was not utilized by him for personal purposes or investment. Copy of the bank account of Shri Vijay J. Ramani has not been submitted to prove that the above withdrawals were not credited to his account. The copies of PAN, Aadhar and Passport of Shri Vijay J. Ramani mentioned the name of his father as Jashubhai Manjibhai Ramani and not Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, the appellant herein. The name of the assessee in the PAN is Jashubhai Manjibhai Patel, and not Jashubhai Manjibhai Ramani. In view of these facts and since no supporting and corroborative evidence has been filed by the appellant to support the claim that the cash withdrawal by Shri Vijay J. Ramani, was part of cash available with the appellant, we do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
