AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 44,13,000/- without appreciating: i) That the amounts withdrawn by assessee who is juvenile diabetic on insulin for the last 50 years with high blood pressure and heart bypass surgery whose hands tremble leading to non-tallying of signature on cheque, hence, consequential withdrawal of cash in person were kept for emergencies pertaining to medical attention for himself and his aged and ailing wife. ii) That it was never stated that the amount was kept for normal distribution (except few hours before death of assessee) to family members as all the children of the assessee are well settled in public service with gazetted posts and have t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing order u/s. 250 of the IT Act, without affording adequate opportunity to represent the assessee and passing the said order in haste which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition despite unequivocal evidences and documents furnished by the assessee as and when sought by the Ld. AO at the time of assessment." 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an Individual and senior citizen aged about 79 years old who has retired as Senior Government servant, Addl. Secretary Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of law, Government of India. The assessee had shown income from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee's explanation and held that there is no substantial justification given by the assessee as to, firstly, why the PAN of the Individual was used in opening the bank account as the income was from property held by the HUF. Secondly, assessee has not declared cash deposit during demonetisation period in the column in the return for Assessment Year 2017-18; and lastly, the assessee's reply that he has withdrawn money being old and suffering from disabling ailment, and allegedly withdrew to be distributed to his family members, which cannot be believed and accordingly he added the entire amount of Rs. 63,63,000/- under Section 69A/115BB of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has given part relief and restricted the addition t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19.11.2016 : Rs. 12,50,000/- 29.11.2016 : Rs. 14,64,000/- 09.12.2016 : Rs. 11,99,000/- 13.12.2016 : Rs. 12,00,000/- Rs. 63,63,000/- 6. The assessee who is a senior citizen and a retired Govt. servant is deriving income from pension, bank interest and is also earning rent from property as a Karta of HUF. It is also an accepted fact that the rental income has been shown in the return of income for HUF, which has been deposited in the Individual bank account of the assessee, which he has opened in his Individual name. The returned income from Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2018-19 shows that the assessee had declared quantum of income in the following manner:- Assessment Year : Total Income 2014-15 : 27,54,300/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime to time. 9. The ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT (Appeals) and submitted that the amount which assessee had withdrawn before the demonetisation, i.e. from 1.04.2016 to 9.11.2016 already the ld. CIT (Appeals) has given benefit. It is improbable that money withdrawn years ago has been kept in the form of cash and suddenly on the day of demonetisation assessee had to deposit the said amount. Such explanation without any proper material to support cannot be accepted. 10. We have heard the rival submissions. After considering the facts and material on record and on perusal of the bank statement, we find that the assessee had been making huge withdrawals from time to time. The assessee is having....