TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stified and be deleted. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the cash flow chart filed explaining that the sum of Rs. 44,25,000/- added u/s.68 was by withdrawing from the bank account and depositing into bank account from time to time and as such there was no fresh cash deposit into bank. Prayed to delete the addition of Rs. 44,25,000/- 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant was regularly filing her return of income and was having sufficient savings to deposit into the bank account. Prayed to delete the addition of Rs. 44,25,000/-" 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 31.03.2012, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,89,670/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had over the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having received the aforementioned gifts the CIT(A) declined to accept her claim of having received the aforesaid amounts in question as gifts. Also, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee could not place on record the requisite details as regards the interest bearing loans which were claimed to have been advanced by her to certain persons, viz. names and addresses of the loanee's, rate of interest, period of loans, date of repayments, mode of payments/repayments etc. Accordingly, the CIT(A) neither finding favour with the claim of the assessee of having an accumulated savings of Rs. 15 lac (supra) with her at the start of the year under consideration; nor with her claim of having redeposited the cash that was withdrawn by her from bank account, thus, rejected the same. Observing that the Assessing Officer rightly had rightly held the amount of Rs. 44.25 lac (supra) as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter before us. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representative of both the parties, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom). Apart from that, we find that a similar view had been arrived at by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal viz. ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), wherein following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bhaichand N. Gandhi (supra) it was observed as under: "8. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material produced before us. We will first deal with the objection raised by the Id. A.R as regards the addition of Rs. 10,53,000/- which was made by the A.O under Section 68 of the 'Act', in respect of the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. We find substantial force in the \contention of the Id. A.R that an addition under Section 68 can only be made where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee either offers no explanation about the nature and source as regards the same, or the explanation offered by him in the opinion of the assessing officer is not found to be satisfactory. That before adverti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of Section 68. That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand'N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: - "As the Tribunal has pointed out, it is fairly well settled that when moneys are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of debtor and creditor and not of trustee and beneficiary. Applying this principle, the pass book supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent's account in the books maintained by the bank. It is not as if the pass book is maintained by the bank as the agent of the constituent, nor can it be said that the pass book is maintained by the bank under the instructions of the constituent. In view of this, the Tribunal was, with respect, justified in holding that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee in the present case could not be regarded as a book of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the....