TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. CIT(A), acted beyond his jurisdiction when he enhanced the addition by Rs. 9,000/-. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to direct the Ld. ITO to add Rs. 49,09,000/- u/s. 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961. 4. For that Ld. CIT(A) should have quashed the Assessment Order made u/s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 dated 31.12.2009 based on suspicion & surmise only, which was also barred by limitation." 2. First we take up ground No. 4 of the appeal as it goes to the validity of the assessment order. 2.1. The AO completed the assessment vide order dated 31st December, 2008. The Ld. AR has contended that the assessment order was received by the assessee on 20th January, 2009 and as such the assessment order is barred by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade the addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- but in the body of the assessment order, he has stated the figure of Rs. 42,00,000/- at one place and Rs. 44,00,000/- at another place of page 3 of the assessment order. We agree with the Ld. AR that the AO has mentioned the varying figure in the assessment order but, we are of the considered view that the same are inadvertently and if read with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the total amount considered by the AO is Rs. 49,00,000/- which has been added while completing the assessment. 3.1. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) disputing the said addition of Rs. 49,00,000/-. 3.2. The Ld. CIT(A), at page 3 of the impugned order has given the details of the amount deposited and amount withdrawn ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the above bank account and the total comes to Rs. 49,09,000/- and stated that these funds represented unexplained money of the assessee and thus made the addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained deposit. Hence, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 3.4. The Ld. AR submitted that the withdrawal from bank account could not be assessed as unexplained expenditure. He further submitted that the deposit in the bank account also could not be considered as hard cash and thus, the provision of section 69A will also not apply. The Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. 237 ITR 24 (SC) and submitted that section 69A referred to unexplained money which could be only the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A) has considered the aggregate amount of the deposits as Rs. 49.09 lakhs as unexplained deposit u/s. 69A of the Act. We are of the considered view that the assessee has made cash deposit and also cash withdrawal from time to time from the said bank account. The assessee has also not been able to explain the source of deposit in the said bank account. Further, the Department has also not brought any evidence on record that the said cash withdrawal has been spent by the assessee. Therefore, we find substance in the submission of the assessee that the assessee made withdrawal from the said bank account and again deposited the same as the assessee could not utilize the withdrawal amount for the purpose for which it was withdrawn. No doub....