AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying on the submission of the assessee which was not made available before the AO., in contravention of Rule 46A, without even remanding it to the AO. 3. Without prejudice to ground No.2, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that in the chart submitted before the Ld.CIT(A),(reproduced at page No.15 of his order), in respect of two entries the assessee has given narration-Babubhai N.Patel. However, it is not explained as to how and why the money was received from Shri. Babubhai N. Patel. In respect of three entries the assessee has given narration area RMP commission, however, the source is not explained. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that the issue before the AO was the assessment of individual. The AO had proved that the bank accounts in question belonged to the individual and not the HUF. 2. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee, an individual filed his return of income on 31.07.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 1,62,920/-; the source of income show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uding the assessee and not the HUF of assessee. Further that, the Bank accounts also relate to the assessee as individual and not as karta of HUF, which is evident from the signature made by the assessee in his individual capacity in the opening form of those accounts. Since no return of income was filed by the said HUF for A.Y. 2010-11, the question of disclosing of these accounts does not and cannot arise at all as also observed by the Learned AO. From the working of capital gain filed with the return of income for A.Y. 2009-10, it appears that the said immovable property was sold at Rs. 17,59,954/- and the HUF has also claimed deduction of Rs. 15,93,480/- to the said capital gain tax payable. According to the Learned AO, the fund of Rs. 1,66,474/- was only available with the said HUF as on 31.03.2009 and therefore, the assessee failed to show sufficient fund to prove the source of cash deposits of Rs. 24,00,000/- and Rs. 8,00,000/-. The Learned AO though accepted the source of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards investment on FDs lying with Syndicate Bank but did not accept the remaining sum of Rs. 49,000/- as explained. A total addition of Rs. 73,63,945/- was ultimately made by the Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y. 2009-10 has also been submitted by the Learned AR before us. On the other hand, Learned DR relied upon the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the Learned Representative appearing for the respective parties, we have perused the relevant materials available on record, we have further perused the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) as impugned. It appears that the assessee has duly explained the source of deposit lying with the three Bank accounts which was duly been taken care of by the Learned CIT(A) as it appears at Page 15 of the order impugned. The same is reproduced for ready reference: Date Explanation Amount 13.05.2009 Syndicate Bank FD (14/10/08) 24,08,383/- 13.05.2009 Syndicate Bank FD 80,409/- 29.09.2009 Sb a/c Interest 115/- 31.10.2009 Sb a/c Interest 575/- EXPLANATION FOR CREDITS IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SB A/C NO. 192 WITH HAJIRA BRANCH Date Explanation Amount 05.08.2009 Sb a/c interest 25/- 20.01.2009 RMP Comm. 250/- 01.02.2010 IOB FD (8/12) 6,02,261/- 05.02.2010 Bank FD Interest 9,437/- 05.03.2010 RMP Comm. 7,578/- 05.03.2010 RMP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that the deduction u/s.54 of Rs. 15,93,480/- as investment in another immovable property, has wrongly been claimed and the whole of the amount of Rs. 17,49,954/- was available with him for circulation. The claim of appellant is evident from the bank statement also wherein no investment in any immovable property to the value of Rs. 15,93,480/- has been reflected. This investment is not reflected in the balance sheet of HUF also, the copy of which is enclosed with the assessment order as 'Annexure- B'. Thus, the appellant was having funds of Rs. 41,74,091/- (Rs. 24,24,146/- + Rs. 17,49,954/-) with him for circulation which is reflected in the form of deposits and withdrawals during the year under consideration. Moreover, during the appellate proceedings, appellant was asked to work out the cumulative peak balance of all the debit and credit entries of three bank accounts which was prepared by him and peak balance was arrived at Rs. 37,14,938/- as on 13.05.2009. Thus, the peak balance with appellant is also covered by the initial funds of Rs, 41,74,091/- available with him. It has also to be seen that both the amounts have already been considered by AO as subject....