TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1012
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,21,50,000 to the returned income on the ground that the appellant that the appellant could not submit the documentary evidence for the sources towards such amount in as much as the appellant has explained the details along with all the documentary evidence towards such alleged cash credit and that all credits are duly explained. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,33,07,611 to the returned income by alleging that the appellant has not proved the source of time deposits in the form of margin money and treating the same to be unexplained time deposits in as much as the appellant has furnished the explanation for such time deposits and that all deposits are duly explained. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,25,08,000 to the returned income by alleging that the Appellant has failed to submit documentary proof for payments made towards the sale consideration of the purchase of land inas much as the consideration for such investment inland is from genuine sources and the entire transaction is duly explained with the documentary evidence. 4. The appellant craves to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....75 Lakhs, but the assessee failed to do so, and also the assessee provided bank statement for the period starting from 16-11-2011 to 18-12-2011 leaving the portion of bank statement before 16-11- 2011 when the cash deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs were made. Likewise, the assessee regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 9 Lakhs merely stated that the entry not traced in bank without providing supporting evidence. The AIR information generated clearly shows that such deposits were made in the bank of the assessee. Therefore, the onus was on the assessee to disprove the AIR information based on evidence. Hence, the AO made the addition of Rs. 1,21,50,000/- on account of cash deposits in standard chartered bank of the assessee based on AIR information. 3. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee claimed that deposit of Rs. 37.5 lakhs in its Standard Chartered Bank dated 28-11-2011 is RTGS transfer from its own bank account with IDBI. However, no such entry was found in the IDBI bank of the assessee. the assessee subsequently claimed that amount of Rs. 37.5 lakh is part of consolidated transfer from IDBI bank for an amount of Rs. 61,99,514/- to 20 parties. However, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the order of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It was alleged by the revenue that there was cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,21,50,000/- at different point of time during the year under consideration, the breakup of which has already been explained/furnished in the preceding paragraph. 6.1 Regarding the cash deposit of 37.50 lakhs dated 28 November 2011 in the bank account of the assessee namely Standard Chartered Bank, we have perused the bank statement of the Standard Chartered Bank placed on pages 403-405 of the paper book. On verification of the deposits in the Standard Chartered Bank dated 28 November 2011, it's transpired that such entry reflects the bank transfer from the other bank account of the assessee namely IDBI Bank. The narration in the bank statement of Standard Chartered Bank clearly records the name of the sender being Neo Structure Construction Ltd along with the IFSC code. Accordingly, we find that the contention of the assessee was correct. Furthermore, it was the duty of the revenue to disprove the contention of the assessee ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Standard Chartered Bank for Rs. 75 lakhs was evident from the certificate placed on pages 408 of the paper book which was matured dated 27 February 2012. This fact can be verified from the details placed on page 406 of the paper book. From the above submission of the assessee, it is transpired that there was no deposit of cash in its bank account namely Standard Chartered Bank as alleged by the revenue but there was FD made by the assessee out of the loan obtained from the bank as discussed above. Such amounts of FD cannot be treated as unexplained cash deposit as alleged by the revenue based on the AIR information. Accordingly, the same cannot be made subject to the addition. Thus, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT-A and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. 6.4 Regarding the addition of Rs. 9 lakhs, the assessee based on the bank statements has submitted that there was no cash deposit in the bank account dated 12 March 2012. The contention of the assessee has nowhere been proved wrong by the revenue by bringing contrary material. The onus lies upon the revenue to bring necessary corroborative material suggesting that there was a deposit in the bank ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereas an amount of Rs. 6,66,83,815/- was renewal of deposit made earlier and remaining amount of Rs. 66,23,796/- was misunderstood with 3 other fixed deposits. Therefore, the addition is required to be deleted. 8. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,81,23,820/- being new deposits made during the year out of fund from IDBI bank and confirmed the addition of remaining deposit for Rs. 7,33,07,611/- only as from unexplained sources. The relevant finding of the learned CIT(A) reads as under: 8.7 In addition to the above, other new time deposits made during the year under consideration have been verified with reference to the copies of bank account statement submitted by the appellant and found that all the new time deposits made during the year to the extent of Rs. 5,81,23,820/- were withdrawn from IDBI Bank of the appellant. Therefore, on perusal of the submissions made by the appellant and documentary evidences submitted by the appellant, it is noticed that the appellant made new time deposits of Rs. 5,81,23,820/- from out of funds withdrawn from Its IDBI bank account, as suchthe sources for the new time deposits ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in appeal against the deletion of addition for Rs. Rs. 5,81,23,820/-. The relevant ground of appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 496/Ahd/2023 reads as under: The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,81,23,820/- out of 13,14,31,431/- made on account of unexplained time deposit. 10. The learned AR regarding the time deposits of Rs. 7,33,07611.00 contended that such time deposits were made from the running bank account where the operating income of the assessee was being deposited. The operating income shown by the assessee for the year under consideration was Rs. 285.85 crores and in the previous year Rs. 227.34 crores which is sufficient to meet/ justify the source of such time deposits. These time deposits were made by the assessee in the course of the business as margin money in order to furnish the bank guarantee to the customers. It was also pointed out by the ld. AR that there were many time deposits which were matured in the year under consideration and were treated as unexplained but without disturbing the source of such time deposits when the originally made/ remade. As such, the renewable of time deposits cannot be disturbed without que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s shown operating receipts amounting to Rs. 285.85 crores which is commensurate to the amounts of FDs made by the assessee. Thus, the ld. CIT-A rightly deleted the addition to the tune of Rs. 5,81,23,820/- made by the AO after giving detailed reasoning explained somewhere in the preceding paragraph. The learned DR at the time of hearing, has not brought anything contrary to the finding of the learned CIT-A. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings given by the learned CIT-A. Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed. 12.2 Regarding the renewal of time deposits of Rs. 6,66,83,815/-, we note that the word renewal itself suggests that FDs, were made by the assessee on the earlier occasion which have been matured and renewed as fixed deposits in the year under consideration. The revenue has not doubted on the original source of renewal of these time deposits. In our considered view, the renewal of time deposits cannot be questioned until and unless the original value of the FD is in doubt. The revenue has nowhere doubted the original total value of the FD, therefore in our considered view the matured value of such FD renewed in the year under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btotal (C) 66,23,796 12.6 As far as the FDs of Rs. 13,95,113/- is concern, it was created in the earlier year and matured in the under consideration. The mature value cannot be disturbed in the year under consideration. It is for the reason that such deposit made in the earlier period has nowhere been doubted by the authorities below. If at all, the revenue has any doubt about the source of such FDs, then the revenue can question the same by disturbing the assessment year in which such FD was made. Further, on perusal of bank statement placed on 45 of the paper books, we note this amount on maturity was credited in the bank account held with IDBI bank. 12.7 Regarding the FD of Rs. 21,78,678/-, we note that the revenue has considered the wrong value of such FD. As per the revenue the amount stands at Rs. 21,78,678/- whereas as per the assessee the amount stands at Rs. 2,18,678/-. In this connection the learned AR brought our attention at page 65 of paper book where the relevant extract of bank statement was placed and we fine that the amount transferred from IDBI bank on impugned date towards FD was of Rs. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble device. The AO also observed that the assessee has not proved the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions. Furthermore, the notices issued to the parties for the confirmation under section 133(6) of the Act were returned as unserved. Accordingly, the AO treated the credit of share capital/ premium for Rs. 13,05,35,880/- as unexplained under sections 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Besides the above, the AO also observed that once the source of investment has not been proved, the investment made by the assessee in the land was also treated as unexplained investment and added the sum of Rs. 13,05,35,880/- to the total income of the assessee. 13.2 However, the AO while making the addition of the aforesaid amount has also treated the land property acquired against cash at Rs. 3,25,08,000.00 as unexplained investment and made the addition to the total income of the assessee. Thus, the AO made for effective addition of Rs. 13,05,35,880/- under section 68 of the Act on account of share capital/ premium and further addition of Rs. 16,30,44,000/- as unexplained investment in land property. 14. The aggrieved assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submission made before the ld. CIT(A). 15.2 The learned AR regarding the addition of Rs. 3,25,08,000 submitted that payment was made through the banking channels. Merely cheques cleared on a later date cannot be a ground holding that the investment was made in cash by the assessee from the unaccounted sources. 15.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR before us submitted that no prudent person shall transfer the land to the company against the shares at such a huge premium. As such, the share subscribers will acquire shareholding in the company disproportionate to the land transferred to the company which is not a normal practice. Thus, the ld. DR contended that there was an element of cash paid by the assessee against the transfer of land. 15.4 Both the ld. AR and the DR before us by vehemently supported the order of the authorities below to the extent favourable to them. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Regarding the unexplained investment of Rs. 3,25,08,000/-, we note that as per sale deed such investment was made by the assessee after making payment to party by issuing 3 different cheques of IDBI bank dated....