TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....003-04; c) Some of the debtors had already repaid the amount before the date of survey amounting to Rs. 1,19,550/- hence did not remain outstanding. Confirmation of addition made in spite of proper explanation towards partial retraction of the amount surrendered during survey on the ground that such retraction was delayed, is unjustified, improper, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That the learned CIT(A) further erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. One lac out of Rs. 2 lacs given for purchase of agricultural land jointly by two parties as per agreement dated 21.7.2003. He ought to have considered that the amounts were advanced at Rs. 1,51,000/- and Rs. 49,000/- by both of them hence the appellant's share being Rs.One lac only, was offered for tax. It being a mistake at the time of survey was rectified with proper evidence and confirmation hence confirmation of addition made at Rs.One lac on the ground of delayed retraction is unjustified, improper, bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law in confirming addition made at Rs. 13,27,300/- being the entire amount of cheques/cash deposited by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,157/-. The A.O. also made addition in respect of debts of Rs. 26,500/- and amounts deposited in the bank account of Rs. 19,48,891/-. Against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal, thereby the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,78,150/- and deleted the addition made on account of gross profit, bad debt and confirmed the other expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of cash deposits of Rs. 19,48,891/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee Sh. B.D. Nagar reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. The submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are as under: 4. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ground No.1 is against confirming the addition of Rs. 3,78,150/- in respect of the difference in the amount surrendered during the course of survey and income offered for filing of return of income. I have gone through the evidence filed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs was out of the cash surrendered during the survey. Further, it is contended that a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 35,000/- were realised from the debtors. So far the cheque deposit in bank account, the assessee has given supporting evidences, therefore, the A.O. is directed to delete this addition. However, in respect of the cash deposit of Rs. 6.66 lakhs, it is stated that Rs. 4,46,500/- is out of voluntary surrender made by the assessee during the course of survey. Hence, the A.O. is directed to delete this addition. In respect of the remaining amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-, it is stated to have been received from the realisation of sale proceeds. The assessee has not filed any confirmation from the debtors. Hence, the addition of Rs. 2,10,000/- is sustained. This ground of assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 8. In respect of Ground No.4, it is stated that the amount of credit entries during the whole year in the savings bank account of wife of the assessee Smt. Jyotibala Jain, who is assessed to tax and the amount was properly reflected in the books of accounts has been added. In support of this, the assessee has filed her return of income of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.1,19,550/- ii) Amount shown as outstanding were given out of realization of old loans hence it was rotation of funds. Rs.1,00,000/- Jointly with one more buyer hence Advance given for purchase of land Unrecorded purchases Cash found during survey in the absence of books. TOTAL Rs.2,00,000/- (Page 6 to 8 of Rs.1,00,000/- 50% only Rs. 98,697/- Rs. NIL = Rs.4,14,000/- Rs. NIL P.B) Rs. 98,697/- Rs.4,14,000/- (Page9 of P.B) Rs.15,00,847/- Rs.11,22,697/- Rs.3,78,150/- 2 Add: Voluntarily Rs. NIL Rs.44,515/- Rs. additionally offered for tax being unexplained credit in bank a/c TOTAL Rs.15,00,847/- Rs.11,67,212/- Rs.3,78,150/- Aforesaid partial retraction of income surrendered during survey was explained in advance. to ACCT & Income tax officer vide letters dated 16.08.2004 before filing of return on 30.10.2004. (Page No.10 to 14 of P.B). Aforesaid partial retraction of the amount. surrendered during survey was explained yet addition was made to returned income. Before Ld. CIT(A) detailed submissions were again made on 12.01.2010 and 26.09.2012 (Page No. 42....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led explanations submitted with documentary evidences in the form of confirmation certificates and assessed an amount of Rs.19,48,891/- u/s 68 of the Act being credits in the bank account. He treated both bank accounts as that of the appellant whereas the Savings bank account was that of Smt. Jyotibala Jain who is being assessed to tax separately. The Ld. CIT(A) summarily rejected the aforesaid explanation relating to credits in the bank account of the appellant vide Para-4.2 of the appellate order at Page-5 solely on the ground that nature and source of the cash deposits in the current account and savings bank accounts was not explained. He also treated both the accounts as that of appellant and over-looked the bank statements in toto. He considered entire deposits as cash deposits in the bank A/c of the appellant and confirmed the addition on the ground that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof by not establishing the source of cash deposit. Detailed explanations given along with documentary evidences from time to time where totally ignored. Such credits comprises of amount received by cheques at Rs.6,65,800/- and cash ....