TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.O. on account of house hold expenses." 3. The first ground is pertaining to addition of Rs.70,14,083/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter). 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search operation under section 132 of the Act was conduced on 28.03.2008. During the assessment proceedings, on examination of Bank accounts of the assessee at ICICI and IDBI Bank, it was noticed that there were entries of deposit of cash and cheques in the denomination of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.54,000/-, totaling to Rs.70,14,083/-. The A.O. asked the assessee to explain the nature and source of deposits. Before the A.O. it was submitted that these were payments received from M/s. Deepak Securities but the letter mailed in this regard has been submitted to explain the source, which does not have the details of Bank from where the demand draft was purchased and nothing has been explained regarding the source of cash sent to the assessee. Therefore, the A.O. made addition of Rs.17,14,083/-. 5. The CIT(A) deleted the addition as under :- (Page nos.3,4 & 5) "3.2 Appellant's submissions along with assessment order have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds based on evidence. When such grounds are themselves based on no evidence, the question of presumption does not arise. The appellant has satisfactorily explained the source for credits/deposits appearing in her bank accounts which cannot be refuted by a mere disability on the part of the AO on the ground that the appellant has not explained the origin of origin and the source of source as well. Once the existence of the creditor is proved and such person(s) owns the credits which have found in the books of the appellant, the onus of the appellant stands discharged and she is not further required to prove the source from which the creditors could have acquired the money deposited with him either in terms of section 68 or on general principle. Merely because the depositors' explanation about the source of money is not acceptable to the AO and in any case not been enquired by the AO himself on receipt of confirmation from the depositor, it cannot be presumed that the deposits made by the creditor is money belonging to the appellant herself. In the absence of any material on record brought by the A.O. as s result of search operations or during the course of assessment proceedings t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lanation against the profit from M/s. Deepak Security Rs.81,94,000/- . Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish any evidence or reconciliation that the amount of Rs.81,94,000/- includes the amount of Rs.70,14,083/-. 7. As regards the non-mentioning of section in the order of the A.O., the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the A.O. has made addition under section 68 of the Act as the assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus to prove the credit worthiness of the creditor with documentary evidence. Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Roshan Di Hati vs. CIT - 107 ITR 938 (SC), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT - 50 ITR 1 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT - 214 ITR 801 (SC). 8. The ld. Authorised Representative reiterated the submissions which were made before the Revenue Authorities. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the A.O. has wrongly recorded that amount received from M/s Deepak Security against transaction of sale and purchase of shares represents income of the assessee from unexplained sources. The A.O. recorded his finding in extremely casual manner without t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ak Security has confirmed the payment of which copy has been place at page no.3 of assessee's Paper Book. He submitted that the statement of account of the assessee in the books of Deepak Security was also furnished, copy of which has been placed at page no.4 to 7 of assessee's Paper Book. It is also submission of the ld. Authorised Representative that how the A.O. has calculated Rs.70,14,083/-, no details or basis has neither been given in the A.O.'s order nor pointed out to the assessee. 11. We have heard the ld. Representatives of the parties and records paused. The facts recorded by the A.O. is that the there are entries of deposits of cash and cheques in the denominations of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.54,000/- in ICICI and IDBI Banks. During the course of hearing before us, it was specifically asked by the Bench to the ld. Authorised Representative to furnish the copies of bank account of ICICI and IDBI Bank account but the same were not furnished. The copies of ICICI and IDBI Bank accounts were called for to verify the fact pointed out by the ld. Authorised Representative that Rs.70,14,083/- is part of Rs.81,94,000/-. The details of deposit of Rs.70,14,083/- was not pointed out by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nference can be drawn against the person who ought to have produced it. In that case, there were crossed cheques but they were not produced. Similarly, in the case under consideration, we asked the assessee to furnish copies of Bank accounts but the same were not produced. In the light of the facts of the case and failure on the part of the assessee, the addition made by the A.O. while making assessment under section 153A is correct and in accordance with law. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and restore the addition of Rs.70,14,083/- made by the A.O. The addition of Rs.70.14,083/- made by the A.O. is confirmed. Ground no.1 of Revenue's appeal is allowed. 12. The second ground of appeal is in respect of deletion of addition of 88,000/- on account of house hold expenses. 13. The A.O. made addition of Rs.88,000/- on account of house hold expenses. The CIT(A) has deleted the said addition following his orders for earlier years. 14. The ld. Representatives of the parties submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of I.T.A.T., Agra Bench in ITA No.246/Agra/2011 vide order dated 31.07.2013. The relevant finding of I.T.A.T. is reproduced as u....