TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1006
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplaining each entry and accordingly, he made a table by giving the account number as well as the date of cash deposits totaling Rs.88,88,000/- which cash deposits, according to him, assessee failed to explain to his satisfaction. Therefore, he made an addition of Rs.88,88,000/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter, the Act). Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the addition by observing as under:- 5. DECISION: I have given my careful consideration to :he statement of facts and perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. Ground I - Addition of Rs.88.88,000/- as unexplained cash deposit The appellant had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.88,88,000 during the year. The appellant had submitted a copy of the cash book and bank book evidencing the cash withdrawals and depositions to prove that the cash depositions were made from cash withdrawals only. The AO held that the appellant had not provided any explanation as well as the explanation was not satisfactory and accordingly, added the same to the total income of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the AO to prove that the explanation is false an not acceptable. The AO has failed to prove the same. After perusing the details filed by the appellant, I find no infirmity in holding that the cash depositions have been made from the cash withdrawals and the appellant has sufficient cash balance to justify the cash depositions. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed." 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. We note that assessee is a builder and developer. He is a proprietor of M/s K.V. Realty and a partner in a firm. The Assessing Officer noted that there were several instances of cash deposits in his bank accounts, so he confronted the assessee to explain the source of the deposits. Pursuant to the same, assessee replied by filing submissions. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the deposits made on few dates (details of which has been stated in the assessment order), the total comes to Rs.88,88,000/-, the assessee had filed before the Ld.CIT(A), the source of deposits of cash on the dates on which the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bout the new loans taken by the assessee. He noted that the assessee has taken a loan of Rs.50 lakhs from Mr. Abdulkadar Vadgama. According to the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the showcause notice issued regarding this issue, the assessee had filed only the loan confirmation but neither produced copy of ITR V filed nor produced him before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, according to the Assessing Officer, assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the loan taken. So he added it under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who was pleased to delete the same by noting that the assessee had provided complete name, address and PAN of the lender in the loan confirmation submitted by him before the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld.CIT(A), had the Assessing Officer not satisfied with assessee's details given in respect of this lender, then he should have initiated enquiry against the lender on the basis of details provided by the assessee. According to the Ld.CIT(A), as per section 68 of the Act, the initial burden is on the assessee to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor. According to the Ld.CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer, assessee is a beneficial owner of shares carrying not less than 10% of voting power in the company (M/s HDPL). The Assessing Officer called for the return of M/s HDPL and observed that it had reserves and surplus to the tune of Rs.23,41,062/- and Rs.29,94,481/- as on 31/03/2013 and 31/03/2014, respectively. From the said figures, Assessing Officer concluded that /s HDPL possessed accumulated profit on the date of loan. The Assessing Officer further notes that though the assessee has attempted to make this transaction of him receiving the amount / loan appear as a commercial transaction, according to him, the same is not in the nature of a trading advance. According to the Assessing Officer, M/s HDPL from whom assessee borrowed funds, is not in the business of advancing or money lending and thus, the advance is not in regular course of business activity and, therefore, he was of the opinion that the loan given to the assessee is deemed dividend and since the reserves and surplus of the company is at Rs.21,91,481/- as on 31/03/2014, he restricted the addition (deemed dividend) to Rs.21,91,481/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who was ....