TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... making addition of Rs. 10,51,950/- u/s 69A of the Act being cash deposited by the appellant. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer further erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 27lAAC of the Act. 5. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.07.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 6,49,770/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for 'limited scrutiny' u/s. 143(2) of the Act. As the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 15 lacs in his bank account, the A.O. to verify the source of the same issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act dated 04.07.2019. The assessee in compliance appeared before the A.O. who recorded his statement on 28.08.2019. The A.O. issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to the banks where the assessee was holding his bank accounts. In response, the banks furnished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: "7. Discussion and Decision:- 7.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 29.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,49,770/-. The case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny and the reason for selection for the case of the appellant was cash deposit during demonetization period. The appellant had submitted that during the year under consideration, he had income from the partnership firm, income from house property, income from other sources and also earned some interest income from his bank accounts. 7.2 During the assessment proceedings, on perusal of the information available with department, it was seen that huge cash has been deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant. The appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 2,50,000/- with UCO Bank, Rs. 7,50,000/- with Corporation Bank Rs. 2,50.000/- with IDBI Bank and Rs. 2,50,000/- with Oriental Bank of Commerce. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued summons u/s 131 of the Act dated 04/07/2019 to the appellant and the appellant has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ready reproduced above in paragraph no. 5.2. 7.4.3 The appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements in support of his submission and contentions:- a. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); b. Tin Box Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax [2001] 116 taxman 491 (SC); c. Vijay Kumar Sharma vs appropriate authority [1995] 78 taxman 187 (Allahabad); d. Perminder Kaur Mathroo vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 44(7), New Delhi, in ITA No. 840/DEL/2021 (Delhi Tri.); e. Om Prakash Nahar vs Income Tax Officer [2022] 135 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi); f. Sunil Mathur vs ITO, in ITA No. 660/JP/2019 (Jaipur Tribunal); g. Dy. C1T, Range 2, Lucknow vs Smt. Veena Awasthi, in ITA No. 215/LKW/2016 (Lucknow Tribunal); Hon'ble Bench held as under: 7.4.4 Determination:- Having gone through submission made by the appellant, the appellant had deposited Rs. 15 lacs in his various bank accounts maintained with various banks and each single deposit is of Rs. 2.5 lacs in each bank account. Therefore, the Appellant claimed that the consideration of the amount of Rs. 2.5 lakh by the Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material available on record. 7. Shri Praveen Khandelwal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee at the threshold has assailed the impugned addition of Rs. 10,51,950/- made by the A.O u/s. 69A of the Act which, thereafter, was sustained by the CIT(Appeals). Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the observation of the A.O. based on the statement of the assessee recorded u/s. 131 of the Act dated 28.08.2019, as regards the availability of cash in hand of Rs. 1 lac (approx.) with the assessee in any year, was perverse and incorrect. Rebutting the observation of the A.O, the Ld. AR submitted that what the assessee had stated in his statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act dated 28.08.2019 was that he had been saving money in the form of cash since F.Y.2001-02, i.e. the year in which, he had started working and had since then regularly been filing his return of income. The Ld. AR submitted that the A.O. had most arbitrarily drawn self-suiting inferences by wrongly construing the statement of the assessee. Als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unts paid regarding the other allowances claimed as deduction by him u/s. 80C of the Act but cannot be accepted as regards the payments made by him towards the tuition fees of his children. Accordingly, the availability of cash (liquidity) with the assessee after considering his 'gross income' and considering the expenses incurred by him towards the education of his son and daughter as per the details furnished by him in reply to Query No.11 of his statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act can be re-casted as under: F.Y. Gross total income Agricultural income Income including Agricultural income Expenses as per statement u/s. 131 Education expenses Travelling expenses (children) Cash position Son Daughter 2014-15 8,21,225 55,000 8,76,225 4,80,000 1,25,000 - 12,000 2,59,225 2015-16 7,94,445 60,000 8,54,445 5,40,000 1,25,000 63,000 12,000 1,14,445 2016-17 8,09,773 75,000 8,84,773 6,00,000 1,25,000 63,000 12,000 84,773 24,25,443 1,90,000 26,15,443 16,20,000 3,75,000 1,26,000 36,000 4,58,443 10. I am further unable to persuade myself to subscr....