TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be assessed by the Jurisdictional Officer of the said company falling under Principal Commissioner of Income-tax -6, Chennai as per the Notification issued by CBDT in Notification No.6/2013 [F.NO.187/14/2012-(ITA.l)], dated 28-1-2013. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Jurisdiction of the ITO, Non- Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai over the appellant stating that the same is as per the transfer order passed by PCIT- 1 in "C. No 236B/Scrutiny Notification /PCIT -1/20 19-20", which is not in accordance with the Notification issued by CBDT in Notification No.6/2013 [F.NO.187114/2012- (ITA.l)], dated 28-1-201 3. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.70,27,500/-, being cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee treated as Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Act, taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act in consequence to the above addition." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Director of M/s. S.V.Global Mills ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in light of Notification No.6/2013 dated 28.01.2013 issued by CBDT and argued that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is null & void, because the Assessing Officer does not have jurisdiction over the assessee. The assessee had also challenged additions made towards cash deposits u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and contended that when the Assessing Officer was not disputing cash withdrawal from very same bank account, ought not have made addition on the ground that the assessee must have utilized cash for some other purposes without bringing on record any evidence to prove that cash withdrawal has been used for some other purposes. 5. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rejected legal ground taken by the assessee challenging jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order exercised jurisdiction as per Notification issued by the Principal CIT assigning the case and further, the assessee was put to notice u/s.129(1) of the Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd notice U/s 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued to the assessèe on 29.08.2018 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Range-2, Chennai. Subsequently, this case was received on transfer vide notification dated 11.11.2019 in C.No. 236B/Scrutiny Notification/PCIT 1/2019-20. Thereafter a notice u/s. 129 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee informing the change in incumbency." Thus the Income Tax Officer Non-Corp Ward-1(4), Chennai who passed the Assessment Order exercised the jurisdiction as per the notification issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Hence this ground of appeal is dismissed. 7. Addition u/s 69: 7.1 Assessee made cash deposits totalling to Rs 1,17,38,500/- and cash withdrawals totalling to Rs 2,19,59,800/- during the AX 2017-18. Assessee failed to explain the sources for the cash deposits and the reasons for the huge cash deposits and withdrawals in frequent intervals. Assessing Officer accepted the withdrawals as sources for the cash deposits made within a reasonable time from the withdrawals and treated the balance cash deposits totalling to Rs 70,27,500/- as unexplained invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that the Assessing Officer has not disputed fact that cash withdrawal from bank account is more than amount of cash deposited into bank account, but made addition only for the reason that the assessee must have used cash withdrawal for some other purposes without bringing on record any evidence to support his findings. In this regard, the learned A.R relied upon certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36(Del). 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the Assessing Officer is very fair, inasmuch as whenever the assessee could explained cash deposits out of previous withdrawals, the Assessing Officer has accepted explanation, however in respect of cash deposits beyond certain dates, the Assessing Officer does not accept explanation, because the assessee could not offer any explanation as to why cash withdrawal from bank account was kept and re-deposited after a gap of one or two months. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer and their order should be upheld. 8. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The ITAT.,Delhi Benches in the case of Gordhan Vs. ITO in ITA No.811/Del/2015 dated 19.10.2015 held that no addition can be made u/s.69 of the Act, on the sole reason that there is time gap of five months between the date of withdrawal and re-deposit into bank account, unless the Assessing Officer demonstrates that amount of withdrawal in earlier occasion had been used by the assessee for some other purposes. 10. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to fact that the assessee has withdrawn cash to the tune of Rs.2,19,59,800/- and made cash deposit to the tune of Rs.1,17,38,500/- into City Union Bank account during the relevant financial year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once the Assessing Officer never disputed fact that cash withdrawal from bank account is higher than amount of cash deposited into bank account, then the A.O. ought not to have made additions towards cash deposits into bank account only for the reason that there is time gap of more than 3 to 5 days between cash withdrawal and cash deposits from very same bank account. It was not the case of the Assessing Officer that cash withdrawal from bank account on earlier occasion had been spent b....