2018 (12) TMI 583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....' for short) dated 26th March, 2018. 2. The appeal being belated and delayed by 59 days, an application C.M. No. 46157/2018 has been preferred by the appellant-assessee for condonation of delay. However, before issuing notice on this application, we have deemed it appropriate to examine the appeal on merits. 3. Findings in the impugned order of the Tribunal affirming addition of Rs. 26,25,000/- sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are entirely factual. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee challenging the findings submits that they are perverse. The appellant-assessee had made withdrawals of more than Rs. 75,50,000/- from her bank account in cash between 3rd June, 2009 to 3rd March, 2010. Hence, the source of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....  9,00,000/-   8 06.06.2009       1,00,000/- 9 09.06.2009   8,00,000/-   10 25.06.2009     11 07.07.2009   9,00,000/-   12 08.07.2009   9,00,000/-   13 10.07.2009   9,00,000/-   14 30.07.2009       2,00,000/- 15 14.08.2009       9,00,000/- 16 18.08.2009       7,50,000/- 17 08.09.2009   9,00,000/-   18 12.11.2009   4,00,000/-   19 14.11.2009   3,50,000/-   20 05.02.2010   8,00,000/-   21 16.02.2010   1,00,000/-   22 03.03.2010   9,00,000/-     TOTAL    99,25,000 &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... they can produce him but he will not be able to verify and establish the facts of property deal. Since assessee herself submits that the agent will not be able to prove anything in this regard, exercise would have been futile only. 3.1.10 Thus, it's quite apparent & logical to draw the conclusion that all these withdrawals were not meant for any property transaction. But these withdrawals were for some other purpose which assessee does not want to reveal for the obvious reasons. Hence, the consequent cash deposits are not the same cash which assessee is saying that she has accumulated during the year, but this is unaccounted income of the assessee, source of which again the assessee does not want to reveal for the obvious reasons. 3.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;       5,996.47 Cr *********************************************************** 23.10.2010 By CLEARING 714   200.00 7,090.41 Cr  04-11-2010 By CLEARING 535125   120.00 7,210.41 Cr 08-11-2010 By CLEARING 120420   1,525.00 8,735.41 Cr 18*11*2010 Cash deposit at DELHI RADHEY PURI     8,00,000.00 8,08,735.41 Cr 18-11-2010 CPR   8,00,000.00   8,735.41 Cr 19-11-2010 Cash Handling Chrg 10-11-2010 At Br. DELHI, RADHEY PURI    200.00   8,455.41 Cr 22-11-2010 By CLEARING 128737   1,360.00 9,815.41 Cr 23-11-2010 TFDVIDKRIS     40,000.00 49,815.41 Cr 23-11-2010 CPR   30,000.00....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s like, Rs. 9,00,000/- in April, Rs. 8,50,000/-, Rs. 4,75,000/- & Rs. 5,00,000/- in the month of May and then, Rs. 8,00,000/- in the fag end of the year, in the month of November ? iii. On 31.03.2010 assessee was having total cash deposits of Rs. 66,75,000/-in hand (Rs.99,25,000-Rs. 32,50,000), then why assessee deposited back only Rs. 35,25,000/- ? Where did the remaining amount go? 3.1.13 Hence, it's quite apparent & logical to draw the conclusion that all the cash deposits are unaccounted income of the assessee, sources of which assessee does not want to reveal for the very obvious reasons. Moreover when countered with the above discussed queries/questions, assessee did not give any explanation. Submission of the assessee is only a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it in view of rather illusionary explanation given by the appellant-assessee for making withdrawal of more than Rs. 99,00,000/- in cash during 12 months from April, 2009 to March, 2010. Pertinently, the alleged deal did not materialize. Reasoning of the assessing officer was for additional reason confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 8. Aforesaid factual findings have been upheld by the Tribunal, which is the final fact finding authority. 9. Burden to explain the source of cash deposit was on the appellant-assessee, who as per the finding has not been able to discharge this burden. The evidence on record is undisputed, and the inference and factual findings recorded we would observe are supported by cogent and weighty rea....