TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 897
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges the correctness of both the lower authorities action treating cash deposits of Rs. 63,48,900/- as unexplained in the course of assessment and upheld in CIT(A)'s order. Both the learned representatives took us to CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reading as follows. "II) The appellant, trader in the business of sarees, filed the return of income electronically for the A.Y. 2013-14 admitting total income of Rs. 2,10,850/- on 30.03.2015. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by estimating the total income of Rs. 66,34,750/-. III) Aggrieved by the above, the appellant is in appeal with the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issued. Though the appellant filed the details, the assessment was completed after making the following additions. a) Rs. 63,48, 900/- alleging that the cash deposits in the bank account to this extent were not explained to the satisfaction of Assessing Officer. b) Rs. 75000/ - claim under the provisions of chapter VIA of the Income tax Act, 1961 was not substantiated by adducing proper evidences 3. The Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had explained the details of the sources for all the deposits that have appeared. in the bank accounts. The learned assessing officer ignoring the submissions of the appellant added the above referred to two additions terming that they remained unexplained or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon, had the assessee furnished all the relevant documentary evidence in support of his submission. Last date of hearing as per the records is on 29.12.2015, and by the time, the assessee had been requested to furnish the details of sources of cash deposits. Had the above mentioned facts been the actual sources, the assessee would not have waited till 29.03.2016 for submission of his "story". In the absence of relevant documentary evidence, cash deposits of Rs. 63,48,900/- is treated as unexplained. u/s 68 of the Act and added back to the Return income. 5. Apart from the cash deposits, there are cheque deposits of Rs. 29,24,300/- in the bank accounts of the assessee. From the perusal of the Computation sheet submitted by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO, the deposits into the said bank accounts are not explained. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 63,48,900/ - on the ground that such deposits made into the bank accounts are not properly explained. The appellant humbly submits that one account relates to the Joint Account of the appellant with his wife who is also carrying on business in sarees. The turnover reported by her in her return of income was Rs. 24 lakhs. The assessee's mother also is carrying business activity in sarees. She filed return of income admitting turnover of Rs. 32,77,105/-. The aggregate of turnover works out to Rs. 83,27,100/ -. The said amount is available for deposit. Besides, there was opening bank balance of Rs. 6,45, 904/-. The copies of the bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of cash deposits. Facts of the case, grounds of appeal and assessment order were perused. The submissions filed by the appellant in tappal in the appeal proceedings were seen. The appellant had claimed that bank accounts with Kotak Mahindra Bank and State Bank of Hyderabad were joints in the name of the appellant and his wife. The appellant submitted one account related to the joint account of the appellant with his wife who is also carrying a business of sarees. The appellant is submitted that the turnover in his wife's return of income was Rs. 24,00,000/-. However, no documentary evidence was furnished regarding the claim. Neither the appellant's wife PAN No. nor assessment particulars and bank accounts details were f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess receipts only. 3.1. Learned D.R. strongly supported the impugned addition as per CIT(A)'s discussion. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing issue of unexplained deposits made in both lower authorities' orders. We find no force in assessee's explanation in entirety. The fact remains neither he has submitted all details of his family members business(es) nor has he denied the fact that the above bank account is maintained in his sole name only. Coming to the point that these deposits are in business nature only, the assessee has failed to prove even a single business receipt in the corresponding span of time in the relevant previous year. We thus find no reason to reverse the impugned addition. 5. Mr.Rao ....