2011 (9) TMI 1247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT (A) vide Para 3 of his order, has erred in confirming addition made by Ld. AO wherein he had erred in making addition of Rs.7,50,000/- by erroneously holding that the cash deposit in bank is undisclosed income of the appellant on following grounds : 2.1 That the above addition is erroneous since the source of cash deposit was duly explained. 2.2 That the cash deposit in bank is out of withdrawls from the same bank account of the appellant. 2.3 That the addition made, without finding out any utilization of withdrawl of cash, is illegal. 2.4 That the above addition is against the provisions of law and facts." 4. The Asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and  took the following lines of arguments : "1. First of all, it is clarified that the transactions in question total to Rs.7,50,000/- instead of Rs.7,60,000/- as totaled by Ld. A.O. as the 1st transaction is actually for Rs.50,000/- dated 30.06.2006 instead of Rs.60,000/- on 30.03.2006. 2. The appellant had deposited a total amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash on 6 different dates in his saving bank account.  The details are as under :-   Date Name of Bank Amount(Rs.) a. 30.06.2006 HDFC Bank 50,000/- b. 06.07.2006   HDFC Bank 1,00,000/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount for purchase of property.  However, the appellant could not materialize a suitable deal and finally re-deposited back the cash in the bank account. 8. From above, the appellant has duly explained the source of cash deposit in the bank account.  It is not an unexplained cash credit at all.  Ld. A.O. was highly unjustified in making the impugned addition." 8. The CIT (Appeals) allowed a relief of Rs.10,000/- stating that the contentions of the assessee that first deposit was of Rs.50,000/- dated 30.6.2006 instead of Rs.60,000/- on 30.3.2006 was correct.  However, the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.7,50,000/- stating that the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits of Rs.7,50,000/- m....