TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Assessing Officer erred in invoking provisions of Sec. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 to the deposits in the bank account (in the name of the appellant and his wife) ignoring Hon. High Court's decisions on the subject and CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming such addition and the same may be deleted as bad in law and quashed. 2. Without prejudice to the above the Assessing Officer and the CIT Appeals have erred in making and confirming respectively the addition u/s.68 of the Act, in respect of bank deposits from relatives when clear evidences were before them relating to such deposits. 3. The Assessing Officer has merely made an additions on account of alleged agreement when the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee submitted that it had received the said amount from relatives and partly from the previous savings i.e. Rs. 7,00,000/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of relatives who had given gift and also to establish saving of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The assessee was unable to furnish evidences in respect of the same and vide office Order Sheet entry dated 07.02.2014, the assessee and Authorized Representative agreed for addition of Rs. 32,50,000/-. The said sum was added as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the income. 5. The assessee filed appeal against the order of Assessing Officer before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, explanation of the assessee was rejected and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) before us. 7. The Ld. AR for the assessee stressed that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had agreed to the addition subject to no penalty being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. But penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and thereafter, the assessee filed appeal, affidavit of relatives and also produced them. Our attention was drawn to the remand report at page 40 to 43 of the paper book. However, the Assessing Officer failed to come to any conclusion. He further pointed out that the Assessing Officer in the remand report, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition pointed out that the addition was made subject to no penalty being levied. However, since penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing the income was levied, he is agitating the addition. 11. The first issue which arises is whether the assessee can agitate the addition, if he had agreed to the same during assessment proceedings. The assessee had received the loan/ gift from his relatives and not from any outside party. The assessee had been able to furnish affidavit of the said relatives before the CIT(A), who confirmed the same before Assessing Officer. In the remand proceedings, the said relatives were produced by the assessee, their statements were recorded and they were also cross examined. No discrepancy has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich were recorded at page 20 to 39 of the paper book. In the totality of the evidences available with the assessee, statements of the persons recorded and their cross examination in which no disparity has been found or detected, then explanation offered by the assessee merits to be accepted in toto. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in making addition on this count in the hands of the assessee. 13. Before parting, we may also note the fact that the addition under section 68 of the Act has been made in the hands of the assessee because of cash deposit in the bank account i.e. savings account maintained by the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand Gandhi reported 141 ITR 67/30 taxmann.com 20....