TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d fixture as a deduction as the agreement for sale specifically mentioned that the sale of premises was along with furniture and fixtures and a sale consideration included the value of furniture and fixture. 3. Apropos ground No.1, the issue of addition u/s.68 On this issue on verification of details of bank statement submitted by the assessee during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was seen by AO that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made certain cash deposits in his bank accounts maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Aixs Bank Ltd. The details of which are as under. Sr. No. Date Bank Name Amount (Rs.) 1 20.07.2015 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 2,50,000 2 21.07.2015 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd 2,50,000 3 09.12.2015 Axis Bank Ltd. 2,50,000 4 15.12.2015 Axis Bank Ltd 2,50,000 5 17.12.2015 Axis Bank Ltd 2,80,000 Total Deposits 12,80,000 4. Before the AO assessee submitted year wise opening and closing cash balance and made following submission. This was noted by AO are as under:- "In this regard, the assessee has submitted a year wise opening a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the year and accordingly the net shortfall worked out at Rs. 1,45,665/- though on prejudice. Moreover, the assessee has also considered the total withdrawals of Rs. 2,00,000/- for cash deposits which is not correct as the withdrawals are for expenditure and not for cash deposits. The cash deposits can be seen as sourced from the opening cash balance in each year and therefore, the huge opening cash balance every year. The assessee has never disclosed its cash balance in any return of income. The chart prepared by the assessee to arrive at the average cash balance for five years is totally on surmises and the same is not backed by the any documentary evidence. Even going by the assessee's submission that the cash withdrawals and deposit have some pattern or logic, analysis of cash withdrawals and cash deposits do not support this logic in as much as the withdrawals are made even though on the given date the assessee was having cash balance in excess of the withdrawals made. Why would anyone withdraw cash when he/she has more than the given amount of cash in hand with him/her? The assessee has been repeatedly asked to submit the documentary evidence to prove the source of cash de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of her family as well as of her mother in law, therefore for their medical emergencies, huge cash balance is withdrawn by her, however from the above chart the appellant has not withdrawn any cash in certain years which is not practically possible, b) From the balance sheet of the appellant it is noticed that the appellant has three motor vehicles whereas, no expenses have been incurred by her for fuel, maintenance, driver's salary etc. c)"Deposit made by her in F.Y 2015-16 was till 17thDecember 2015 only whereas withdrawal of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by her was after that, therefore the same cannot be considered as source for deposit made during the year under consideration. d) The cash withdrawn in the previous years were already deposited by her in the respective year itself. e) The claim that cash received by her from Mr, Hasmukh Gandhi was utilized for making investments is not supported by any documentary evidences. f) Last but not the least she had shown an opening cash balance of Rs. 6,53,600/- as on 01.04.2012 whereas from the cash book of previous three years, it is evident that the source of cash generated during the-year is to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,94,910/- no corroborative evidence was filed by the appellant and therefore the AO disallowed the claim of cost of improvement to that extent. 11. Ld.CIT(A) noted that assessees submissions are as under:- "During the appellate proceeding, along with the written submission which is reproduced in para-6 of this order, the Ld. AR submitted photocopy of so-called ledger account of expenses and copy of invoices of expenses claimed as incurred on cost of improvement of the impugned property and the appellant requested to allow the cost of improvement at Rs. 19,83,181/-. Further, the appellant had also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal, Vadodara Bench in the case of Rajat B Mehta vs. Income Tax Officer - International Taxation." 12. Upon assessees appeal, ld.CIT(A) placed reliance upon the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision on similar issue held as under:- "It is observed from the assessment order and the submission of the appellant, that the appellant had sold a house property for 'sale consideration of Rs. 1,15,28,265/- against which cost of improvement amounting to Rs. 19,83,181/- has been claimed as cost of improvement of the impugned property....