TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 their own sufficient source of income. iii) That assessee had to deposit the cash due to demonetisation that too partially i.e., notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 as they were no longer considered as legal tender. iv) That the amount withdrawn from 2014 to 2016 far exceeds the amount re-deposited by nearly 50% and sufficient to fulfill household and other expenses. v) That the said beneficial addition but restricting it to Rs. 19,50,000/- i.e. withdrawal of 3 months from August to October 2016 only is confirmed on the basis of vague assumptions against factual scenario is not maintainable in the eyes of the law which is not fair, just and equitable but confiscatory and expropriatory. 2. That Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating the additional evidence pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidual name of Om Parkash Nahar, but the rental income was deposited in the Bank of Baroda which stands in his Individual name, but right from beginning, the income of the HUF was being deposited in the said account and shown in HUF's return. The amount of Rs. 63,63,000/- was deposited out of withdrawals from the same account from time to time made during the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, because of his serious illness and old age. The assessee was in the habit of withdrawing the money and keeping in the form of cash at home. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected 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period in the column in the return for Assessment Year 2017-18; and lastly, the assessee's reply that he has withdrawn money being old and suffering from disabling ailment, and allegedly withdrew to be distributed to his family members, which cannot be believed and accordingly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. 63,63,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2014-15 : 27,54,300/- 2015-16 : 31,69,640/- 2016-17 : 30,21,340/- 2017-18 : 37,28,900/- 2018-19 : 32,42,940/- 7. The assessee's explanation is that looking to his old age and suffering from various ailments as he had suffered a heart attack and had juvenile diabetes, therefore, for his mental security he was in the habit of keeping huge cash with him. This is also evident from the fact as brought out on record by the ld. Counsel that since beginning, assessee has been withdrawing cash and keeping it with him after withdrawing from his bank account. It has also been submitted by him that the assessee had under-went bypass surgery and operation in the past and looking to his ailment and staying alone with his wife, therefore, he has been withdrawing and keeping cash for his personal and psychological security. In support of this explanation, he has shown the bank accounts of the assessee and pattern of his cash withdrawals and filed a chart depicting cash in hand after withdrawing from bank starting from 1.11.2012, which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced as under:- 8. Thus, Ld. Counsel submitted that looking to the peculiar facts of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the assessee in the form of cash. If the assessee had no source of income apart from rental or pension income and some interest amount and same income earned regularly has been withdrawn regularly leaving very less cash in the bank account, that shows the pattern that the assessee was indeed in the habit of keeping the money in the form of cash probably looking the old age and various ailments as explained by him. Under these circumstances, we find that the explanation of the assessee to be reasonable and plausible and preponderance of probability is in the favour of the assessee and without any adverse material it cannot be presumed that the cash deposited by the assessee is out of some his undisclosed source. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 44,13,000/- as sustained by the CIT (Appeals) is deleted. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on : 27/01/2022. ============= Document 1 S.no. Date Cash Deposit Cash Withdrawal Balance in passbook Availability 1. Opening cash in of cash 5,00,000 hand Remark Figures are not available due to old passbook not traceable but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 828,252 33,83,000 11,07,252 34. 01.03.2014 35. 03.04.2014 10,28,452 13,07,452 Rent of Rs.2,79,000 deposited for Feb 2014 Transferred Rs.78,800/- Rent of Rs.2,79,000 deposited for March 2014 36. 21.04.2014 5,00,000 807452 38,83,000 37. 20.05.2014 1,00,000 37,83,000 38. 21.05.2014 49. 5,00,000 420426 11,43,426 42,83,000 Enhanced Rent of 40. 01.07.2014 41. 02.07.2014 19.08.2014 1406426 42. 28.08.2014 5,00,000 8,00,000 106426 55,83,000 Rs.3,01,500 for April and May 2014 and other 2 cheques of Rs.75,000 and 45,000 deposited. Income tax Deposited of Rs.3,40,000 2 cheques of Rs.301,500 for the month of June and July Document 3 43. 14.10.2014 NEFT of Rs.9,04,500/- 44. 10.11.2014 10,10,926 1329039 Rent transferred through NEFT of Rs.9,04,500/- Rent transferred through NEFT of Rs.3,01,500 45. 21.11.2014 11,00,000 66,83,000 46. 10.12.2014 Rent transferred through NEFT of Rs.3,01,500 47. 26.12.2014 5,25,000 48. 08.01.2015 5539 9,10,039 72,08,000 10.02.2015 11.03.2015 49. 30.03.201....