2013 (9) TMI 1236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....law, the CIT(A) III, Baroda erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,93,250/- out of addition of Rs. 13,97,500/- made to the returned income by the Assessing Officer as cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in regular and disclosed bank account of the appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A)-III, Baroda erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,60,0-00/- made to the returned income by the Assessing Officer on account of advance received. 3. The Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. During the course of assessment proceedings on the basis of AIR information vide order sheet entry dated 29.9.2009, the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ld.CIT(A), after giving relief of Rs. 10,000/-. Following was precise observations of CIT(A) :- "So far as additions of Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 66,000/- + Rs. 60,000/- are concerned, again the Assessing Officer's observations that cash withdrawal of Rs. 2 lakh on 17.8.2006 and Rs. 1 lakh on 17.8.2006 is not on account of self with drawal but are cash withdrawal by means of cheque issued in other persons name have not been controverted by the appellant. Hence, addition of Rs. 1.26 lakh is upheld and relief of Rs. 10,000/- is given to the appellant." 8. It appears that due to confusion between the self withdrawals or cash withdrawals by means of cheque, the addition has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). However, both the lower autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to be mentioned are left blank. Under such circumstances, it is held that the appellant has failed to establish that he received cash on account of cancellation of agreement which were deposited in his bank account. Hence, additions of these amounts are upheld." 11. However, before us, the assessee could not place on record any evidence to substantiate the identity of the person, who has refunded the money and genuineness of the transaction. Further, the finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) as reproduced hereinabove could not be controverted. Accordingly, we confirm the action of the CIT(A). 12. With regard to loan of Rs. 1.60 lakhs from Shri G. S. Sharma, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the plea that no confirmation was f....