TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,96,075/- made by the A.O. u/s.69 of the Act despite the fact that assessee failed to explain the source of the credits made in the four undisclosed bank accounts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,96,075/- made by the A.O. u/s.69 of the Act after accepting the plea of the assessee that cash deposits made in these four undisclosed accounts were made from the cash withdrawn from these accounts on earlier occasions despite the fact that there was sufficient cash available with the assessee as per the cash book and assessee failed to furnish any cogent reason for the withdrawals. 3. On the facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 2,07,231/- under the purview of taxation. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Reve4nue is in appeal before us. 3. Grounds Nos.1 to 3 are inter-connection and, therefore, the same is decided together. The ld.Sr.DR Shri Nimesh Yadav vehemently argued that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had not disclosed the bank account. He drew our attention towards the statement of facts, wherein the bank accounts are mentioned. He made submissions as were made in the statement of facts. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have sustained the addition. 3.1. On the contrary, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no error into the order of the ld.CIT(A). He submitted that the AO failed to take ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the tune of Rs. 14,78,000/= (supra) and therefore a substantial cash balance was lying in the hands of the appellant which were reapplied for deposition of cash in these bank accounts. Moreover, as per the cash book of the current year as well as earlier year submitted before me, it is observed that there was an opening cash balance of Rs. 10,00,000/= which must have been used for deposition in bank account. It is also observed from the current year's cash book that there was a negative cash balance of Rs. 5,37,000/= on 30-11-2006 which was the peak amount of negative balance suggesting the unexplained cash deposit. Since a substantial cash was withdrawn during the earlier year, there is a reason to believe that the same could have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in respect of such bank account was made in her case and the said person had given the loan to the appellant from the said bank account only. In respect of other loans, the appellant had submitted the confirmations as well as their pass books from where the loans were given to the appellant and the AO did not give any rebuttal against these loans except that their names were not appearing in the Balance sheet of the appellant. However, since these bank accounts were not shown by the appellant, obviously, their names could not be reflected in the accounts filed alongwith the return of income. The AO did not give any specific rebuttal against these loans. Therefore, when the source of funds credited in the impugned bank account was explain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und in the accounts of the assessee, it is incumbent upon him to explain the source of such credit. In the present case, the assessee has merely made a sweeping statement that these amounts were out of loans from friends and relatives, cash deposits, interest income and from maturity of mutual funds. The assessee also furnished certain confirmations from Jayshreeben Parmar, Chandan Parmar, Hansaben Parmar and Bhudarji Mithal. However, the assessee has not furnished the proof of creditworthiness of such creditors. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,47,847/- being the loan received from friends and relatives without any supporting evidences of the creditworthiness of such creditors. Further, the ld.CI....