TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 22.02.2010 declaring Nil Income. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that in the return of income, the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 2,56,343/- which was entirely claimed as exempt under section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in view of the compulsory acquisition of land by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The case was selected for scrutiny for this Assessment Year and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2011, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 52,62,338/- in view of the following additions to the returned income :- (i) Unproved sums payable - Rs. 13,70,330/- (ii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case:- [a] Sri Hanumanthappa Rs. 3,00,000/- [b] Sri R S Rakesh, S/o the appellant Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 35,20,000/- considered as unexplained cash deposits made by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s. 234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cheque No.10859 of Canara Bank which was encashed on 28.03.2009. The said amount was received as advance towards sale of site and since the intended purchaser backed out from the deal, the said amount was to be returned to him; out of which a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- was repaid on 29.03.2009 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was repaid on 30.03.2009 by cash. The balance of Rs. 3,00,000/- payable was genuine and the identity of the party was established. 6.1.3 With regard to the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to Shri. R. S. Rakesh, S/o the assessee, the learned AR submitted that the said amount was received by way of an account payee cheque and his PAN furnished and therefore this credit cannot be disbelieved. 6.2 Per contra, the learned DR argue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iss ground No.2 raised by the assessee. 7. Ground No.3 - Cash Deposits - Rs. 35,20,000/- 7.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee contends that the CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 35.20 lakhs made by the assessee. In this regard, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the AO noticed that there were cash deposits in the assessee's bank account in the year under consideration. On being queried in this regard, the AR of the assessee agreed for an addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- in respect of the aggregate of cash deposits made. Subsequently, before the CIT(A), the assessee retracted the aforesaid admission of un-explained cash deposits as being erroneous and claimed that the said cash deposits were out of earlie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... According to the learned AR, the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Jayasree Chit Funds & Services (P) Ltd., (supra), turns on its own facts and the same does not apply to the case on hand. It is further submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Kishore Kumar (supra), relied on by the learned DR, is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand as it was rendered in the context of admission in a sworn statement given by the assessee in the course of search conducted under section 132 of the Act. The learned AR argued that the aggregate cash deposits can never be taxed as income when the source of these deposits are not properly explained and that in such circumstances, it is only the peak cre....