TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as on law, Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 2,68,000/- being cash paid for purchase of new car by treating it as undisclosed investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. iii. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Vide ground nos. 1 and 2, the grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,68,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to the Act). Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 24.3.2015 declaring an income of Rs. 9,43,160/-. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. During ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Car 15,000/- 5. 03.11.2013 Regn. Charges 64,080/- 6. 03.11.2013 Insurance Charges 32,966/- 7. 03.11.2013 Logistics Charges 8,500/- 8. 03.11.2013 Loan from SBI 4,50,000/- 9. 03.11.2013 Accessories Charges 13,000/- Total 10,58,000/- 10,58,000/- 4. The AO observed that the information received from the company revealed that the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 5,93,000/- while the assessee explained the total cash payment of Rs. 5,43,000/-. He, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of purchase of car and was of the view that the assessee could not establish the cash payment made to M/s Vardhman Cars Pvt. Ltd for Rs. 2,68,000/- (5,43,000/- minus Rs. 2,25,000/- minus Rs. 50,000/-) and accordingly the addition of Rs. 2,68,000/- was also made. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) who deleted the additions of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 2,25,000/- by observing that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 50,000/- from his bank account on 27.10.2013 and that the assessee could explain the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- received from sale of old car. 7. As regards to the addition of Rs. 2,68,000/-, the submissions of the assessee were as under:- 6.1 That Ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l by Smt. Garima Sharma from: HDFC Bank Standard Chartered Bank Citi Bank HDFC Bank From 01.04.2013 to 31.07.2013 Rs. 53,900/- Rs. 72,000/- 68,000/- Rs. 78,800/- From 01.08.2013 to 03.11.2013 Rs. 1,72,000/- Rs. 81,500/- Rs. 94,200/- Rs. 1,51,500/- Total Rs. 2,25,900/- Rs. 1,53,500/- Rs. 1,62,200/- Rs. 2,30,300/- Total withdrawal from both of them Rs. 7,71,900/- 4.13 Your Honour, we respectfully submit that cash withdrawal of Rs. 7,71,900/- as explained above, from the appellant's and his spouse's account was not merely for day to day house hold expenses. It also Includes the cash withdrawal Wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., there was no other use by the assessee for these cash withdrawals and in the absence of that, simply because there was a time gap, the explanation of the appellant cannot be rejected and hence addition of Rs. 268000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is not correct. 4.18 In case of Baldev Charla 121 TTJ 366 ITAT Delhi has held that the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected simply because there was a time gap, and hence addition confirmed by the Ld. Assessing Officer is not correct. 6.10. Is noteworthy to mention here that the investment for purchase of new car have been duly explained from bank withdrawals as discussed above and the same is genuine in view of facts that no prudent man will withdraw accounted ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....68.000/- as made bv the Ld. A.0 being unexplained investment for purchase of car u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. 1961." 8. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the submissions of the assessee had been considered by the AO in para 4 of the assessment order, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the AO. 9. Now the assessee is in appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the payments in cash were made out of withdrawals from the bank accounts, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions made by the AO. The reliance was placed on the decision ....