TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 30/11/2010 deleted the addition made on account of ESI and PF of Rs. 14,527/-, upheld the addition of Rs. 5,000/- on account of difference in account of Shri. Prabhat Chandra and partly allowed the assessee's appeal with regard to adhoc disallowance of expenses relating to telephone and car and addition made on account of unexplained deposit in bank. 4. Aggrieved by the same both the assessee and revenue filed the present appeal before us. 5. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1458/Chd/2010. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding addition of Rs. 14,20,212/- on account of undisclosed sources under section 68/69A of the I.T. Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not giving full benefit of opening balance of cash in hand as source of deposits n bank accounts/M/s. CBM Engineering Works. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not giving full benefit for sale of Plots amounting to Rs. 4,67,500/- as source of deposits in bank accounts/M/s. CBM Engineering Works. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he receipt of cash of Rs. 10 lacs as advance from Sh. Mohinder Singh and the receipt of cash from the sale of plots amounting to Rs. 4,67,500/- but did not accept the assessee's explanation of attributing deposits to bank withdrawals made on various dates, for the reason that there was no link between the withdrawals made from the bank and the cash deposited on various dates and further also for the reason that the withdrawal were made by one Shri. Dushyant Singh who was the employee of the assessee and the same were made to meet the day to day business use of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore accepted the explanation of cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 27 lacs, while the balance amount of Rs. 14,20,212/- was treated as unexplained and addition to that extent was upheld. 11. Before us Ld. AR pleaded that the impugned deposit of Rs. 14,20,212/- are explained from the withdrawal made from the bank account itself. Ld. AR argued that cash was withdrawn from the bank accounts on various dates primarily through an employee of the assessee. Sh. Dushyant Tyagi, in whose name bearer cheques were issued. This cash was later on redeposited in the bank account on various dates. Ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On 19/04/2006 the appellant has made three different withdrawal of Rs. 11,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- and as per the copy of the bank statement these have been withdrawn by three different persons Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Sh. Dushyant Tyagi and Sh. Vijay Bakshi. (iii) On 28/04/2006 the appellant made four different withdrawal amounting to Rs. 9 lacs, Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- out which three withdrawals were made made by Sh. Dushyant and one Sh. Raj Kumar. (iv) On 4th May two different withdrawals Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- have been made by Sh. Dushyant. (v) On 5th May two different withdrawal of Rs. 1,80,000/-and Rs. 2 lacs have been made, out of which Rs. 1,80,000/- has been withdrawn by Sh. Dushyant and Rs. 2 lacs in cash. Other small withdrawals on different dates have also been made either by Sh. Dushyant or Sh. Raj Kumar. Thus, none of these withdrawals other than Rs. 2 lacs cash withdrawal on 09/05/2006 from Bank if Rajasthan and Rs. 2 lacs cash withdrawn from ICICI Bank on 05/09/2006 (though in the cash flows statement date of cash withdrawals has been shown as 25/09/2006 while the copy of bank account show that d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in many cases small amounts were withdrawn 2 or 3 times on a single day by different persons. Further the deposits in bank were made after a gap of 2-3 instances of withdrawals. Considering the totality of facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances we concur with the Ld. CIT(A) that the withdrawal were for the purpose of business and not available for redeposit. 16. Moreover, we also agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that in the absence of any detail of expenses incurred by the assessee in this period the cash flow statement has no relevance and the entire withdrawal cannot be said to have been redeposited. Moreover as held by the Ld. CIT(A) the withdrawals have been found to be subsequently redeposited after a gap of two or three months which is not probable. The assessee therefore we find has not been able to link the cash withdrawn from the bank with cash deposit we therefore uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) treating the cash deposit of Rs. 14,20,212/- as unexplained income of the assessee. 17. In view of the above ground no. 1 & 2 of the assessee are dismissed. 18. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 137/Chd/2011 19. In the appeal....