TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant from the year 1993-94 to 1996-97 and should have given a set off to the deficiency. 2. The Officers below should not have brushed aside the drawings of Rs. 4,00,000/- (2,00,000 + 1,00,000 + 1,00,000) from the firm Muthoot M.George Financiers, Faridabad. 3. The Officers below were not justified in not considering the Cash Flow Statement & Certificates filed during the course of hearing from 2 firms totaling to Rs. 5,00,000/-." 3. Brief facts of the case are as follow:- 3.1 The assessee, an individual, had filed return of income on 31.10.1996 declaring total income of Rs. 2,64,660 comprising of income under the head 'capital gains' and 'other sources'. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was completed vide orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt that she had withdrawn 4,00,000/- from the particular firm on three different dates for the construction purpose, also cannot be accepted since she has not proved that the amount she had withdrawn had not all been spent for the construction purpose. Further, as mentioned in para 6 of the assessment order, the current account of the firm, M/S Muthoot M George Financiers shows that the appellant deposited her loan from Canfin of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs on 14.8.1995 and 14.12.1995 respectively. But, it is clear that she could not have deposited the cash from this source as she had received a clearing cheque which was deposited by her in her bank account only after she deposited the cash allegedly received from Canfin. Moreover, she neve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee had withdrawn cash of Rs. 2,00,000 on 10.04.1995, Rs. 1,00,000 on 10.05.1995 and Rs. 1,00,000 on 15.09.1995 from the firm M/s.Muthoot M.George Financiers. It was submitted that though the narration given for withdrawal was 'building construction', the entire amount was not spent on the very same day for the purpose of building construction, and the cash balance is also available with the assessee to explain the short fall that is pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the cash flow statement prepared by her. 6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the assessment order and the order of CIT(A). 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The deficit of cash d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95 and 18.12.1995. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer after determining the shortfall / deficit in cash deposits with the firm has to be sustained. 7.2 However, I noticed that the assessee had declared a sum of Rs. 3,14,950 by way of cash under the VDIS pertaining to assessment years 1993-94 to 1996-97. In the absence of the year-wise bifurcation of the declaration under the VDIS, it is not possible to give entire credit of Rs. 3,14,950 to the deficit cash deposit worked out by the Assessing Officer. Further, I noticed that there had been cash withdrawals by the assessee from the firm on various dates totaling to Rs. 4,00,000. Though the narration for such withdrawals is given as building construction, the entire amount ....