TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer on account of alleged unexplained bank deposit. 2. The assessee is an individual deriving share from firms. He is also a partner in firm M/s Kailash Yadav & Company. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 04/10/2010 declaring NIL income. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 17,80,000/-, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for not accepting the explanation provided by the assessee that the amount deposited in the bank was received from M/s Kailash Yadav & Company, partnership firm where the assessee was a partner. The Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness of the firm and the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advancement of money to the assessee then further enquiry into the source cannot result in invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) unless the existence of the person in whose name credit entry is found is not proved or he disowns having made such deposit. In the assessee's case, M/s Kailash Yadav & Company has given a confirmation and accepted that the money deposited in the bank account of the assessee had been advanced by it. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Jangid Vs ACIT 217 CTR 354 and CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh (2001)252 ITR 528. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the explanation of the assessee about the receipt of Rs. 16,000 from Devendra Sankhla was rejected on the ground that on inquiry from Devendra Sankhla the creditor could not satisfactorily explain source wherefrom whether he could have advanced Rs. 16,000, looking to his income and family expenditures. In other words, the cash credit in the name of Devendra Sankhla was rejected on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove source wherefrom deposit or advance by Sri Devendra Sankhla could be made. This finding has been consistently affirmed by CIT(A) as well as by Tribunal. We are of the opinion that in rejecting the explanation of the assessee on the undisputed facts is founded on erroneous application of law in the matter. While it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the name of Sri Devendra Sankhla cannot be sustained. Such addition of income of assessee has to be deleted from the income of assessee." The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT (supra) has held as under:- "Held, allowing the appeal, that section 69A could not be invoked merely on the basis that a person was found in possession of any valuable article and it was only on his being further found to be the owner of such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles that section 69A could be invoked for raising presumption. This basic link was missing through the proceedings. The assessee had explained the transactions through which the primary gold and the gold ornaments came in his possess....