TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1404
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urred in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the delay was not willful and it was not deliberate and the delay has been caused beyond the control of the assessee. It was submitted that there was no omission, negligence or carelessness on the part of the assessee. 2.1 The Ld. DR has not raised serious objection to filing of the condonation petition by the assessee. 2.2 We have gone through the condonation petition. As seen from the records, the assessee is a cancer patient and has been on regular medical treatment and therefore, he was not able to attend to his tax matters. Hence, we find there is good and sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 59 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 32,50,000/- made by the Assessing Authority u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have examined the insurmountable facts on record, in an independent and judicious manner, and fairly held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith him in an attempt to create a comfort zone against the haunting thought of pain and suffering. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant would have kept in hand that much cash stock not for medical treatment alone; but might also be for settling any possible family and pious obligations. 9. For these and other grounds that may adduced at the time of hearing the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to delete the addition of Rs. 32,50,000/-. The appeal may be allowed. 4. The crux of the above grounds is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 32.5 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on the unexplained investments. 5. The facts of the case are that the assessee was an individual who is deriving income from partnership, having income from house property, long term capital gains and other sources. The assessee is having bank accounts in Union Bank of India, State Bank of India and Central Bank of India. The details of cash transactions from 31/12/2013 to 31/03/2015 is as follows: Date Particulars Amount Amount 31/12/2013 Cash withdrawn from UBI SB A/c No.396702010004711 5000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on 26/09/2014 which was explained as redeposit of amount withdrawn on 31/12/2013 from Union Bank of India. The Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee had not filed the wealth tax return for the year ending 31/03/2014, it cannot be presumed that the assessee has kept the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs in his hands for almost nine months. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee had received Rs. 6,50,000/- on sale of Studio Apartment in DD Vyapar Bhavan, Kadavanthra vide sale deed bearing No. 4123/2014 executed on 25/09/2014 to Shri Vasantha Kumar S. In addition to this, the assessee had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on 26/09/2014 from the bank account of State Bank of India. Even though the assessee had not claimed these amounts as source of deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- to his Bank account in Union Bank of India, the Assessing Officer treated these two amounts as source for the deposit. Also an additional leverage of Rs. 5 lakhs of cash in hand for deposit was given to the assessee in view of the cancer treatment as cash kept with him and given credit for Rs. 23,50,000/- and remaining Rs. 28,50,000/- was treated as unexplained sources. 7.1 On appeal, the CIT(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013 and 22/09/2014 and the share was transferred for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-. It was submitted that the entire consideration was received in assessee's bank account within the period of 02/09/2013 to 30/12/2013. The final payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- was received on 30/12/2013. It was submitted that the assessee had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-on 31/12/2013 and the assessee had a substantial cash in stock from the above withdrawals to support the deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- made on 26/09/2014. Apart from the specific amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the assessee had a cash inflow of Rs. 1,50,000/- from S. Krishnakumar on sale of apartment made on 26/08/2014. Similarly, it was submitted that he had received another consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/-from S. Vasatha Kumar on 25/09/2014 against sale of apartment. He had another cash withdrawal of Rs. 10,00,000/- from his SBI Account on 26/09/2014. Thus, he had an immediate cash inflow of Rs. 18,00,000/- in addition to the carry over cash balance available from the withdrawal of Rs. 50,00,0007- made on 31/12/2014. 8.4 It was submitted by the ld. AR that the lower authorities had grossly erred in concluding that the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by 10/09/2013 against the transfer of his interest in the partnership. Thus, it was submitted that he had sufficient source for huge cash turnovers to support each and every bank deposit made by him in the relevant previous year. 8.7 It was contended by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Authority had no case that the assessee had made any investment out of Rs. 50,00,000/- withdrawn on 31/12/2013 since it is highly improbable that the assessee could/would indulge in any investment activity during the period of pain and suffering and when there is no case of any huge out flow of cash out of the withdrawal made on 31/12/2013, the probability is that the assessee had a substantial support from the money withdrawn on 31/12/2013 so as to make a deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 26/09/2014. In fact, the preponderance of probability has to be presumed in favour of the assessee. For this, the assessee relied on the Rule laid clown by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan (237 ITR 570). In the above decision, the Supreme Court while interpreting the phraseology used in Sec. 69 had held that in creating the legal fiction, the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus, the uns....