TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the relevant documents available on record. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following two effective grounds :- 1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.4,65,000/- out of the addition of Rs.4,65,000/- out of the addition of Rs.13,37,100/- made by AO u/s.68 on account of cash deposits n bank account of appellant. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(SA) is arbitrary, baseless & contrary to evidences on record and is not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground no.2 raised by the appellant regarding non applicability of provisions of sec. 68. In the facts of the case, addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is illegal and not justified. 4. Brief facts of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived at Nagpur. Evidence at PN 16 of PB. 4. These amounts deposited by her at Nagpur directly in the bank account of the assessee. Relevant entry in bank account bears this fact. 5. Fact of the amount having been given supported by affidavit of the mother, PN 15 of PB. 6. Gifts also reflected in the capital account of the assesseee's mother, at PN 17 of PB. Rs.1,50,000/- includes Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 70,000/-. 7. Source of Rs. 3,15,000/- i) Gifted by assessee's mother. Deposited directly by her at Nagpur in the bank account of assessee. Relevant entry in bank account bears this fact. ii) Reference of the gift in para 7 of the affidavit which is at PN 15 of PB. iii) Amount of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime. Wrong observation in the appellate order. Reliance on: i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). ii) CIT vs Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217, 223 & 224 (Raj.) iii) Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs ACIT (2008) 298 ITR (AT) 403 (Ahd.) iv) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) Ground no. 2 Before Id. CIT(A), ground no. 2 taken in the appeal memo to the effect that addition made is not covered by sec. 68. Ld. CIT(A), did not adjudicate this ground. The assessee was not required to maintain books and has also not maintained it. Addition made on account of cash deposit in bank account, invoking sec. 68. Addition is illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m) and ITO, Barabanki Vs. Kamal Jumar Mishra (2013) 33 taxmann.com 610(Lucknow) etc are discussed, and concluded with the following observation: 9. After having gone through the facts and circumstances, we observe that credit in the 'bank account' of an assessee cannot be construed as a credit in the 'books' of the assessee, for the very reason that the bank account cannot be held to be the 'books' of the assessee. Though, it remains as a matter of fact that the 'bank account' of an assessee is the account of the assessee with the bank, or in other words the account of the assessee in the books of the bank, but the same in no way can be held to be the 'books' of the assessee. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the scope an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h it arrived." We find that the aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had thereafter been followed by a 'SMC' bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Smt. Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 1(2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - "I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. The legal point raised by the assessee is to the effect that the bank Pass book is not an account book maintained by the assessee so as to fall within the ambit of section 68 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 16 4 ITD 296 (Mum) and ITO, Barabanki Vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra (2013) 33 taxamann.com 610 (Lucknow). 10. We find that as stands gathered from the records, the addition aggregating to Rs. 4.03 lacs sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is in respect of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, and not in any 'books' of the assessee for the year under consideration. We thus are of the considered view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, the addition made by the A.O in respect of the cash deposits of Rs.7,13,000/- in the bank accounts of the assessee by invoking Section 68 has to fail, for the very reason that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble ....