TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Briefly the facts are the assessee is an individual. For the year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 8-12-2010 declaring a total income of Rs.4,38,820/-. In course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on examining the bank accounts of the assessee held in different banks such as Tirumala Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., (TCUB), Bank of India, UCO Bank and Lakshmi Vilas Bank found credits of Rs.35,43,365/- for the period from 1-4-2008 to 31-3- 2009.When the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of amounts credited in the bank account with source of such deposits, the assessee in his rely submitted that the deposits were made out of the cash withdrawals made from all the bank ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the property and an amount of Rs.18,91,000/- for repayment of loan. Therefore, no surplus cash was available with the assessee for depositing into the bank account. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the amount of cash deposits into bank account amounting to Rs.35,43,565/- is the unexplained investment of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. However, while computing the income, the Assessing Officer actually added an amount of Rs.36,93,565/-. The assessee being aggrieved of the addition made preferred an appeal before the CIT (A). 3. The CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee was satisfied that the assessee had only paid an amount of Rs.26,66,000/- for acquisition of the property and not Rs.56 lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the loan was for acquisition of the property. The observation of the Assessing Officer that the withdrawal of Rs.30,00,000 was spent for acquiring the property is, therefore, merely a presumption which is not borne out by the facts." 4. The CIT (A) also accepted the fact that the withdrawals of Rs.44,44,412/- was not utilised for loan repayment of Rs.18,91,000/-. However, the CIT (A) taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had made withdrawals of Rs.19,300 and Rs.23,350/- immediately after cash withdrawals of Rs.30 lakhs, was of the view that since the assessee was having the cash available with him out of withdrawals made, there was no need for him to further withdraw the specific amounts of Rs.19,300/- and Rs.23,350/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y did not have the cash available for it. Similarly, the assessee continued to make similar withdrawals of specific amounts all through the year though his cash balance allegedly continued to be above Rs.10,00,000/- throughout the year. For example, withdrawals were made of Rs.13,575/- on 21-5-2008, Rs.5,100/- on 18-6- 2008, Rs.2,575/- on 6-9-2008, Rs.18,300 on 17-10-2008, Rs.2500/- on 6-11-2008, Rs.13,500/- on 24-12-2008, and Rs.11,342/- on 3-2-2009. It is inconceivable that a person having cash balances in excess of Rs.15-16 lakhs would need to make such petty withdrawals. I, therefore, hold that the withdrawals of Rs.44,44,412/- made by the assessee were utilised for specific purposes and were not available for making the subsequent depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presentative relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT( 214 ITR 801 (SC) and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) (SC). 7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions cited by the parties. The sole issue in the present appeal is whether cash deposits made in different bank accounts of the assessee were out of the withdrawals made by the assessee as per the claim of the assessee or not. From the order of the CIT (A) reproduced above, it is quite evident that the CIT (A) has accepted the fact that the assessee has paid Rs.26,66,000/- towards acquisition of the property and not Rs.....