TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....450/- representing alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant and brought to tax under section 69 A of the Act. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the cash deposited represented cash received against sale of old car by the appellant. 2.2 That mere fact that notice u/s 131 of the Act was not complied by Sh. Kartar Singh could not be a valid basis to sustain an addition and reject the explanation. 2.3 That furthermore addition sustained is untenable having regard to the fact that when search summons was received late by Sh. Kartar Singh and therefore who was unable to appear during the course of remand proceedings. 2.4 That even otherwise the conclusion i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Kartar Singh along with copy of his driving licence and affidavit placed at assessee's paper book pages 26-30. The ld. Counsel submitted that in the affidavit dated 08.11.2019, Shri Kartar Singh categorically stated that he made payment of Rs.8,25,000/- on 12.05.2009 towards purchase of assessee's car Ford Fiesta, Registration No.HR51AC0551 and later on he did not like the vehicle and returned the same to the assessee and received the amount back from the assessee. The ld. Counsel also submitted that in the same affidavit Shri Kartar Singh has categorically stated on 20.11.2018 that he submitted a declaration before the Income-tax authorities. In response to the same he received a summon dated 09.04.2019 for his appearance on 15.04.2019....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of explanation of the assessee towards source of deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the block of assets, the car has been mentioned by the assessee and depreciation has been claimed and allowed by the AO. Therefore, ownership of car has not been disputed by the authorities below. The ld. Counsel submitted that the AO has disbelieved the transaction on the basis of conjectures and surmises and the ld.CIT(A) has also gone far beyond to analyse the value of car and consideration stated by the assessee as he cannot step into the shoes of the seller and purchaser of assets/car, written down value of which had the opening was Rs.7,07,285/- and sale consideration of second-h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....CIT(A) and made himself physically present for recording of his statement and also submitted an affidavit sworn on 08.11.2019 before the CIT(A) explaining all facts and circumstances under which he could not appear before the AO during remand proceedings. Shri Kartar Singh also expressed his willingness before the CIT(A) that he is ready to give a statement and all relevant documents supporting the explanation of the assessee, but, his request was dismissed at the threshold and the ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 19.11.2019 confirming the addition in the hands of the assessee. In my humble understanding, there is no rebuttal by the AO or any other competent Revenue authority to the affidavit of Sh.Kartar Singh dated 08.11.2019 (supra). It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds No.2 to 2.4 of the assessee is allowed. Ground No.3 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, during the hearing before me, submitted that the addition of Rs.50,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on lumpsum basis representing unexplained expenditure incurred on foreign travel by the assessee is not sustainable as the assessee has successfully demonstrated the source of such expenditure. Therefore, the same may kindly be deleted. 8. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the assessment as well as the first appellate order and submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee visited Dubai, but, no expenses were shown by the assessee in the ITR as well as during assessment proceedings. The ld. ....