TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA Nos. 1605 & 1739/AHD/2013 (Smt. Jayaben Mathurdas Kaneria) 3. Assessee is an individual stated be be deriving income from salary, business, partnership firm and other sources. Assessee filed her return of income for AY 2009-10 on 31.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs 412475/-. Thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs 86,57,500/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 30.3.2013 granted partial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee and Revenue are now in appeal before us. The effective ground raised by Assessee reads as under:- (I) Addition of Rs.48,40,000/-: (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.48,40,000/- out of addition of Rs.82,45,026/- made by the Assessing Officer. (2) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making addition of entire cash deposits when these were explained and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not consideri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. He therefore concluded that with the intention to evade the tax, Assessee had deposited her unaccounted income in the bank account. He thus considered the total deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs 82,45,026/- as undisclosed income of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee granted partial relief to the Assessee by holding as under:- 9. DECISION. I have gone through the assessment record, assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The assessment records were requisitioned from which it is seen that the appellant had not disclosed the bank account maintained with SBI. It was only when she was issued show cause notice by the AO on the basis of AIR received from SBI did she own the bank account but submitted that the transactions in the bank account reflected her yarn trading transactions carried out on no profit no loss basis. The appellant thereafter disclosed additional income of Rs. 9,72,000/- for taxation as earned out of undisclosed sources. The appellant had not filed any profit and loss account or balance sheet with the return of income which was ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has given a separate "working of peak after excluding offered income of Rs. 9,72,000/-" Even this working which computes the cash shortage if offered income is ignored cannot be accepted. As per this working the appellant has claimed to have highest cash shortage of Rs. 9,72,000/- on 05-11-2008 which she has offered for taxation. But the table given for working out the cash shortage is itself not verifiable from the appellant's bank statements of different banks and her cash book as not all transactions are reflected therein. 9.4 However, from the bank statement of SBI, it is seen that cash has been withdrawn on various dates by different individuals like Jagan, Bimal, Sejal etc. The appellant has not explained how cash withdrawn by Jagan, Bimal Sejal etc on various dates was available for re-depositing in the bank account as cash must have been withdrawn for a specific purpose and therefore not available for rotation as claimed. 9.5 Considering the above facts and discrepancies, the total cash deposit of Rs. 48,40,000/- in the appellant's undisclosed bank account maintained with SBI is treated as the unexplained income of the appellant. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present case A.O noticed that certain deposits were made in the bank account maintained with State Bank of India which included cheque as well as cash deposits but the deposits were not offered to tax and in the absence of satisfactory explanation from the Assessee, the entire deposits aggregating to Rs 82,45,026/- were considered as undisclosed income. It is also submitted before us by the Ld DR that based on the submissions and evidences furnished before CIT(A), relief was granted to Assessee and that those evidence were never before A.O. Before us, Ld. AR could not controvert the submission of the Ld DR that the evidence was not filed before AO. Further there is no material on record to demonstrate that on the evidence that were filed by the Assessee before CIT(A), any remand report or comments were called by CIT(A) from the AO. In such circumstances we are of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play, Revenue should be allowed an opportunity to examine the evidence that were filed before CIT(A) and on the basis of which relief was granted to the Assessee. With respect to cash deposits, it is the submission of the Assessee that that the entire cash deposits canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay be restored to the above extent. 13. Before us, since both the parties have admitted that the facts of the case are identical to that of in ITA Nos. 1605 & 1739/AHD/2013 in the case of Jayaben Kaneria. We therefore for similar reasons while deciding the appeals in the case of Jayaben Kaneria (ITA Nos. 1605 & 1739/A/2013) remit the entire issue to the file of AO to examine the evidence and submission of the Assessee and with respect to the cash deposits, to work out the peak credit on the basis of settled practice and thereafter decide the issue as per law. Needless to state that AO shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. We also direct the Assessee to submit promptly all the required details called for by the AO. Thus the grounds of Assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, the appeals of Assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 1614 & 1693/AHD/2013 (Smt. Jullie Amit Kaneria) 15. The effective grounds raised by the Assessee reads as under;- (I) Addition of Rs.36,00,000/-: (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in ....