2020 (2) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 declaring total income at Rs. 3,54,780/-, which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee during the relevant assessment year was sales Manager of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited. The assessee submitted that the bank account of the assessee was used for the business purpose of the company and the cash was collected from the agents which was deposited into his bank account. Thereafter the premium of the policy holders/prospective policy holders was paid through his bank account. Thereafter the AO asked the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits in his bank account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 7,25,000/- in his bank account out of which Rs. 75,000/- was accepted by the AO and remaining Rs. 6,75,000/- was treated by the AO as unexplained deposit in his bank account. 3. Feeling aggrieved from the assessment order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee was most reasonable. Moreover for a small level of cash balance maintained at home, no evidence can be adduced. The assessee had also filed the cash flow statement for the preceding assessment year i.e. Assessment Year 2009-10 to explain the cash in hand available for the year under consideration. Copy of the cash flow statement for the preceding year as filed with the assessing officer are enclosed at page no. 12 to 16. Being the son of a Head Constable in Punjab Police - Sh. Ravel Singh who had passed away in 1986, the assessee was staying with his widow mother and real brother in the police quarter. This fact stand mentioned at point no. 2 of the submission dated 30/11/2012 filed at page no. 8 & 9 above. The household contribution of the assessee was about Rs. 1.70 lakhs as the pension received by his mother was also available. Copy of the pension account as filed with the assessing officer is enclosed at page no. 17 to 19. The real brother of the assessee i.e. Sh. Sukhraj Singh was a head constable in Punjab Police and was running/maintaining the house. Withdrawals made by the assessee through ATM card cannot also be viewed against the assessee. A person may have cash ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the source of money furnished by the person in whose name the money was lying deposited was found to be false, it would be remote and farfetched conclusion to hold that the money belonged to the person with whom it was lying deposited. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Umacharan Shaw reported at 37 ITR 271 that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. When the assessee had given reply for specific withdrawals, there was no reason to disbelieve the same. It was not justified on the part of t he assessing officer to believe part of the statement and disbelieve part of the statement. The reduction of the amount received from Sh. Pishor Singh to Rs. 50,000 was thus not justified. Mother of the assessee - Smt. Harjinder Kaur had funds available with her which were given to her son. As submitted above, the assessee's father was in police and had expired and in his place, his elder son Sh. Sukhraj Singh was given job in Punjab Police. The level of funds in question are not unreasonable to expect from a normal person. In fact after demonetization, the prime minister had himself announced that a deposit of up to Rs. 250,000 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T AT in the case of Smt. Ravinder Kaur vs. ITO. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 33 to 36. It may also be submitted that the section 69A does not deal with the addition the nature of which has been made by the assessing officer. The above submissions as well as the rejoinder were before the ld. CIT(A) who has incorporated these at page no. 4 to 9 of the impugned order. The findings of the assessing officer are contained in para no. 4.8 to 4.11 at page no. 10 and 11 of the impugned order. It was observed by the ld. CIT(A) that as far as customers / agents cash was concerned, no customer would leave cash to this extent with the agent (cash flow statement of earlier year at page no. 15 & 16) whereas cash balance of Rs. 50,000 in self cash statement was accepted for which equivalent relief was allowed and the addition of Rs. 675,000 reduced to Rs. 6,25,000. The affidavit for the gift given by mother and real brother as being out of their savings has not been accepted for being "self serving in nature". It was further stated that the assessee should have supported this with evidence in the shape of assessment particulars, source of income, bank sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vailable out of the amount received from clients at Rs. 145,500 [para no. 5 at page no. 4 of the assessment order]. The balance amount of Rs. 48,500 has been treated as unexplained along with the sum of Rs. 45,500 in respect of which policy of customer was not produced and addition of Rs. 94,000 [48,500 + 45,500] was made. This contention of the assessing officer is not justified. The cash flow statement of own cash itself shows adequate cash being available with the assessee. The cash flow statement enclosed above at page no. 20 & 21 accounts for this balance amount of Rs. 48,500 [Rs. 194,000 - Rs. 145,500]. Out of the sum of Rs. 194,000 a sum of Rs. 100,000 pertained to the policy whose details were given and benefit for the same has been allowed. The balance amount of Rs. 45,500 was wrongly added as adequate cash is in any case available as per the cash flow statement filed at page no. 20 & 21. The addition of Rs. 94,000 [48,500 + 45,500] deserved to be deleted. The above submissions were before the ld. CIT(A) [point no.2 at page no.6&7 of paper book. Finding of CIT(A) is in para no.5.7 of the impugned order wherein position as per cash flow statement has not been considered. ....