TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authorities for having made additions of Rs. 87,89,900/- and Rs. 6,38,550/- towards unexplained cash deposits in his IDBI and SBI Account, respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the profession as Electrical Contractor filed his return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 2/10/2011 admitting income of Rs. 5,79,520/-. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 21/03/2014 wherein the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 87,89,900/- and Rs. 6,38,550/- being the unexplained cash deposited in his IDBI and SBI account, respectively. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld. AO because even before him, the assessee had not fully explained the sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pt of which he instantly transferred the same to Sri Thoram Venkateswara Rao. Thereafter, on the insistence of the bank for repayment, his friend Sri Thoram Venkateswara Rao deposited the cash in his IDBI bank account. The assessee had further submitted that these facts had been intimated to the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and an affidavit from Sri Thoram Venkateswara Rao stating the above said facts and with regard to cash deposit of Rs. 87,55,900 was also submitted before him. It was further submitted that the assessee had neither offered any income towards interest nor claimed any expenditure towards the same. It was further explained that the aforesaid transactions were not disclosed in his books of account and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. (v) The details and the evidence for the loan transaction with the bank was not produced, (vi) Correspondence with the bank with respect to the loan transactions was also not produced. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. Revenue Authorities as stated hereinabove and further relied on the following decisions:- (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investments P. Ltd. (Delhi) 330 ITR 298 (ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. T.I. & M Sales Ltd. (SC) 166 ITR 093 (iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Metha Parikh and Co. vs. CIT (30 ITR 181) (iv) Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings. Further, though the assessee had submitted certain bank statements before us, the entire transaction remains to be properly explained. The Ld. Revenue Authorities have also not made any finding with respect to the bank statements produced before them. The affidavit furnished by the assessee also remains unverified. It is also apparent that the Ld. CIT(A) has made a detailed finding in his order with respect to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the appellate proceedings and non-furnishing of any cogent evidence to establish the transactions to be genuine. From the facts of the case it is further apparent that the assessee was not able to explain the source for the cash deposit before the Ld. Revenue Authorities by drawing pr....