TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act.). 4. Without prejudice to ground no 3, the Learned Assessing Officer has used the words "unexplained cash deposits", in the assessment order and hence the same is taxable u/s 68 of the Act. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that for the purpose, bank statements cannot be construed to be books of account of the appellant and, therefore, any sum found credited in the bank account cannot be treated as an unexplained cash deposit and hence the addition is bad in law. 5. Without prejudice to ground no. 3 to 4, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen and the managing partner of the firm Mis. Al Aziz Broilers had deposited in his personal bank a/c the cash sales from the firm's business as the branch in which the firm maintains the account is in Shenoy Nagar which is far from his business premises, for the sake of convenience, considering his age. 6. Without prejudice to ground no. 3 to 4, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the cheques were issued to suppliers of Chicken and also EMI to the finance compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come of Rs. 75,85,625/-, by making additions towards unexplained cash deposits and capital introduction for Rs. 6,64,481/-, unaccounted cash found during search for Rs. 15,70,650/- and unaccounted gold jewellery for Rs. 51,92,994/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but could not succeed. The ld. CIT(A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order, dated 29.05.2019, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made towards unexplained cash deposits, cash found during the course of search and unexplained gold jewellery. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 2 to 7 of assessee's appeal is addition towards unexplained cash deposits and capital introduction. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits to his savings bank account maintained with HDFC Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, amounting to Rs. 9,43,253/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain source for cash deposits, for which the assessee stated that cash deposits to bank account is ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer to delete addition of Rs. 6,64,481/- towards unexplained cash deposit and capital introduction. 8. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 8 to 10 of assessee's appeal is addition towards unexplained gold jewellery of 1480 gms found during the course of search. During the course of search, 1980 gms of gold jewellery was found in the premises of the assessee. A statement was recorded from the appellant, wherein he has stated that gold jewellery belongs to his wife, mother and daughter. The Assessing Officer, rejected explanation of the assessee and made addition towards unexplained jewellery for Rs. 51,92,944/-. It was the explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that entire gold jewellery found during the course of search cannot be assessed in his hands, because gold jewellery is belongs to his entire family and was acquired over a period of time from its savings and income of family members. 9. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, in light of arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition towards gold jewellery of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... himself and his family members and source for said cash is out of his savings and business income. The Assessing Officer, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee could not explain source for cash and thus, rejected arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 15,70,650/- towards unaccounted cash found during the course of search. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submits that cash belongs to partnership firm at Rs. 6,66,450/-, cannot be added in the hands of the assessee, because it is an admitted fact that the partnership firm deals with poultry products and the assessee mainly deals its business in cash and cash found during the course of search is out of sales of previous day. He further submits that the remaining cash is explained out of additions made in the hands of the partnership firm and if you consider source out of additions in the hands of the partnership firm, then there cannot be any addition towards cash found during the course of search. 12. The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the CIT(A) submits that, the assessee could not explain source for cash found durin....