TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....road. The issue in this appeal is with reference to cash deposits made in ICICI Bank. 2. Briefly stated, assessee filed return of income of Rs. 3,16,969/-, but could not respond to various notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the scrutiny proceedings. AO made certain additions and determined total income at Rs. 41,61,030/-. In the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee furnished various details and contested the additions made in the ex-parte order. On remand, Ld.CIT(A) examined the facts and considered the submissions and deleted certain additions. One such addition is the addition of Rs. 35,80,000/- being deemed income of cash deposits in various bank accounts. The details and the decision of the CIT(A) are as under: "9.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt, rest of the additions made by the Assessing Officer were transfer entries or cheque deposits in ICICI and HDFC Banks. The Assessing Officer in his Remand Report held that the appellant satisfactorily explained the sources for these transfer entries/cheque deposits. Therefore, what is to be explained is the source for cash deposits of Rs. 28,95,000/-. The appellant had drawn cash flow statement which begins with cash on hand of Rs. 2,99,664/-. The source for cash on hand was not explained and such cash on hand was not supported by any immediate withdrawals from her account or from any other source. The sources for cash deposits of Rs. 28,95,000/- appearing in ICICI Bank account were explained by the appellant as under: Date of cash d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Sri J.Srinivas Reddyhad filed confirmation letters. However, the appellant could not produce any agreement copy entered to purchase the land. The appellant also did not give the specific dates on which the payments were made to Sri J.Venkat Reddy and Sri J.Srinivas Reddy and the sources for the same. Moreover, all the transactions are in cash. It appears that Sri J.Venkat Reddy and Sri J.Srinivas Reddy are related to the appellant and had given the confirmation as per her request. Such confirmations are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. With reference to deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 24.07.2009, this amount was claimed to have been received from Sri J.Venkat Reddy as an advance for purchase of building. As per the information on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the sources for cash deposits of Rs. 22,95,000/-, the addition made by the Assessing Officer to that extent is sustained". Assessee is aggrieved on partial confirmation of the addition. 3. It was the submission of Ld. Counsel that assessee has filed the cash flow statement starting from 01-04-2008, whereas assessment year involved is AY. 2010-11. The opening cash balance observed by the CIT(A) as not verifiable, is in fact based on the returns of earlier years and there was cash balance with assessee as on 01-04-08. With reference to various payments for construction of buildings it was submitted that there was no dispute. It was pointed out that assessee has advanced an amount of Rs. 6 Lakh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erused the cash flow statement placed in the paper book. It is true that assessee has furnished cash flow statement from 01-04-2008 till 31-03-2010 to explain various withdrawals in the bank and expenditures. The opening cash balance of Rs. 2,99,664/- considered by the CIT(A) does not pertain to the year under consideration. This is the balance in earlier year. Remand Report of the AO has not been mentioned by the CIT(A) in the order. Neither the assessee also placed the copy of remand report on record. Assessee has filed a cash flow statement and justified the deposits in bank accounts. Most of the amounts stated to have been received are advances made out of the withdrawals made in earlier years. This aspect has not been considered by the....