TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law was framed on 5th December, 2017. ITA 1115/2017 This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) by Rajiv Jain (hereinafter referred to as the, appellant-assessee) relates to Assessment Year 2010-11 and arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 26th May, 2017. 2. By order dated 5th December, 2017, the appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:- "Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs. 10,17,650/-, is justified in the circumstances of the case?" 3. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the appellant-assessee as an individual engaged in commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was finally settled for Rs. 3,85,000/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- were withdraw from the bank on 27.11.2009 and returned back to the buyer who met the assessee in an exhibition. As the sale was made of personal effects and are not capital assists and consequently no capital gain is liable to pay as such. The assessee has not linked the transactions of deposit made in cash out of available cash balance. further, in connection with sale of wearing apparels and silver utensils, the contention of the assessee has not been substantiated by any proof of sale. The contention of the assessee that silver utensil came under the definition of personal effect is also not correct. (sic) In view of definition of jewellery given U/s 2(14) of I.T. Act. Further,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 for leading additional evidence before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Reliance was placed on the cash flow statement and bank account statements. Written submissions were filed. These have been placed on record before us. 10. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 31st October, 2016 deleted addition of Rs. 16,42,592/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits made in Standard Chartered Bank holding that the money belonged to the mother of the appellant-assessee. 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) however, upheld the addition of Rs. 10,17,650/- observing that the appellant-assessee had not given any explanation for cash withdrawal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bank account. It is also not the case of Appellant that one or two days before the deposits of cash, he has withdrawn the amount of cash. Appellant has not shown as to how the amount if withdrawn for some purpose could not be utilized and, therefore, same was re-deposited. As such, there is no basis in the claim of Appellant. 8.8.4 Further, it is seen that Appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of its claim that he had sold personal effect of unique ancestral description; No details regarding the wearing apparels & silver utensils have been submitted as to when they were acquired, its value and to whom it was sold, date of sale, mode of transaction and when and to whom these were sold. Appellant has not produced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw money to again redeposit the same in the same bank account. Assessee has also not explained with evidence to show as to how the amount, if withdrawn for some purposes, could not be utilized for which the same was re-deposited. Assessee has also not submitted any documentary evidence to support the claim that he had some personal effect of unique ancestral description. The explanation of the assessee that he was keeping cash of Rs. 4,10,000/- is also without any basis and contradictory to his submission before the CIT(A). In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly the same is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed." 13. We agree with the above reasoning and finding tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- made on 17th August, 2009 and 27th October, 2009. In the alternative, it was submitted that the addition should be partial. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, we find that the Tribunal in the impugned order has failed and not taken note of the aforesaid contentions raised in respect of the deposit of Rs. 4,92,900/-. The said issue has not been examined in the light of the pleas and aspects that arise for consideration. Accordingly, we feel that the matter should be re-examined by the Tribunal. Liberty is also given to the appellant-assessee to file an application for additional evidence to justify and explain the reason for substantial cash withdrawals made between 12th June, 2009 to 16th October, 2009. We clarify that we ha....