TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 18,05,200/- u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act and bringing the same to tax u/s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act. 4. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified not considering the evidences submitted by the appellant for sources to explain the deposits in the bank accounts. 5. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified not considering the fact that the appellant had sources to explain the deposits in the bank accounts." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 01.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 17,67,960/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS and accordingly a notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 06.09.2018 and duly served on the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1) dated 25.07.2019 was issued and served on the assessee on 27.07.2019 requiring him to furnish a copy of ITR-V along with return of income, statement of income relevant to AY 2017-18, balance sheet, profit and loss statement and audit report u/s 44AB, if any. 3.1. After examining the details and submissions furnished by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em was afterthought and therefore, return of incomes were required to be ignored. 7. With respect to the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, ld. DR submitted that assessee being the partner in the firm M/s.Apollo Multi Specialty Hospital, there has to be some reason for withdrawal of the amount and merely saying that the amount was available and therefore, he has withdrawn and shown it in deposits in his bank account did not leads to any credence more particularly, when the amount has not been reflected in the books of account of the said firm. 8. On a pointed query, ld. AR submitted that after withdrawing the amount from the account of M/s. Apollo Multispecialty Hospital Firm as it was adjusted against the salary income / adjusted towards the capital account of the assessee in the firm. Further, on enquiry, ld. AR submitted that out of the sum deposited, Rs. 99,000/- after receiving from his father, were deposited in the Specified Bank Notes (prohibited notes). 9. I heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Firstly, I will deal with the issue of gift received at Rs. 10 lakhs by the assessee from his wife on various dates. Addition of Rs. 10 lakhs : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash gift received by the assessee from his wife on the pretext that the onus is on the assessee to prove that the cash deposit did not bear the character of income. In my view, by filing confirmation from his wife and also the return of income showing the gross total income of Rs. 22,96,219/- during the assessment year under consideration, assessee discharged his onus. In the said confirmation, the wife of the assessee had submitted that Rs. 10 lakhs were given by her to her husband as gift. In my opinion, the wife of the assessee falls within the exempt category of 'relative' as mentioned under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and even otherwise, once the wife admits to have given the cash of Rs. 10 lakhs to her husband, the Revenue cannot object to the said gift. As the Revenue cannot disbelieve the confirmation given by the wife and moreover, the Revenue had accepted the return of income filed by the wife of the assessee showing Rs. 10 lakhs as cash gift to her husband. In view of the above, the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs is deleted. 10. Addition of Rs. 2.40 lakhs With respect to the second issue i.e., cash gift received from the father of the assessee at Rs. 2.40 lakhs, the ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sly, and therefore, in the light of the above, I uphold the addition of Rs. 2,41,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 11. Coming to the last issue i.e., cash withdrawal from the firm M/s. Apollo Multispecialty Hospital as partner of the firm Rs. 5 lakhs and saving cash available on hand deposited Rs. 65,000/-, ld.CIT(A) at page 8 of his order has decided the issue by observing as under : "3. Appellant mentioned that appellant and his wife are only the partners in firm M/s Apollo multi specialty hospital and the appellant had withdrawn money from the firm to meet his commitment. In this connection, appellant has submitted confirmation letter from the firm. However, appellant has not submitted any supporting document to substantiate the withdrawal of Rs. 5 lakh from the firm. Further, appellant has submitted that he has deposited Rs. 65,200/- from the cash balance in hand for emergencies and contingences. As the primary onus of the same lies with assessee and the assessee has not submitted the documentary evidence to substantiate the receipt of cash deposit, I find that the AO is justified in disallowing the alleged cash withdrawals." 11.1. In this regard, ld. AR has s....