2015 (10) TMI 2479

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11, for the assessment year 2010-11, he filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,91,560/- on 31.7.2011. The case was processed u/s. 143(1) on 31.10.2011 as N.A. 2. After that the case was selected in CASS scrutiny. The AO is to examine the source of cash deposits of Rs. 53,00,000/- in saving bank account as per AIR information. Necessary notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 8.8.2012 which was duly served upon the assessee. Further a questionnaire notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 2.12.2013 fixed for 13.12.2013. In response to the notice, Shri Rakesh Thakkar, Advocate submitted his Power of Attorney as Authorised Representative on behalf of the assessee. The case was fixed time and again. The Ld. AR submitted the requisite in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 8 lacs on 21.4.2010 from the Bank and re-deposited the same on 29.9.2010. He submitted that the addition is made only on the ground of presumption, that the period of 5 months, from the date of withdrawal and the date of deposits, is not explained. Further, he argued that the AO on surmises and conjectures, held that, cash would not have been kept with assessee or his wife for a period of 5 months, when they are having the bank accounts. He submitted that the First Appellate Authority has wrongly held that the explanation of the assessee is not justified. He pointed out that the assessee maintained the cash book and the copy of the same was filed before the AO as well as ld. CIT(A). He argued that the books of accounts have not been rej....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e ground on which the additions has been made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, is that, there is a gap of 5 months between the withdrawal of the cash from the Bank account and re-deposit of the same in the Bank account. An addition made, solely on this ground cannot be sustained. In this regard, I draw support from the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of AICT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 121 TTJ (Del) 366 wherein it has been held as under:- "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this explanation of the assessee was found correct that against these five deposits on dated 14th June, 1996, Rs. 31,000; 21st July, 1997, Rs. 1,27,000, 19t....