TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 06/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal : "1. Confirming the addition of Rs. 79,53,025 u/s. 68 of I.T.Act, 1961 on the ground that the Appellant had failed to give the details of source of cash deposits. 2. Confirming the above addition without properly appreciating the fact that cash deposit were made out of cash balance available with the Appellant as also the cash withdrawals made by the Appellant. 3. not considering the cash summary tendered by the Appellant (and produced on page 14-19 on the Appellant order dated 15.5.2024) in its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at cash deposits made in the aforesaid saving bank account were from her past savings and current withdrawals. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the statement made by the Appellant was not corroborated by documentary evidence. Since the Appellant had admitted in her statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act that she has deposited cash of INR 96,00,000/- in the aforesaid joint account held by her with her husband which was not corroborated by documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income had escaped assessment and therefore, re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the Appellant. The aforesaid re-assessment proceedings culminated into Assessment Order, dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e withdrawals during the relevant previous year and parts of the deposits made in the joint bank account were sourced from such cash withdrawals. In support the Appellant placed before the CIT(A), the cash summary for the period commencing from 01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016. The aforesaid submission made by the Appellant did not find favour with the CIT(A). The CIT(A) agreed with the Assessing Officer and concluded that Appellant had failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, vide order dated 15/05/2024, the CIT(A) granted partial relief to the Appellant by applying peak credit theory and thereby restricting the addition of INR 96,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of INR 79,53,025/- holding the same to be max....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls for the relevant previous year 2015-16 have been reproduced by the CIT(A) in the order impugned according to which cash-in-hand of INR 52,47,711/- was available with the appellant as on 01/04/2015. Accordingly, given facts and circumstances of the present case we deemed it appropriate to remand the issue pertaining to addition of INR 96,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act back to the file of Assessing Officer with the directions to adjudicate the same a fresh after granting Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Appellant is directed to file all documents/details and supporting evidence explaining source of cash deposits of INR 96,00,000/- including relevant financial statements, bank statement, ledger accounts and return ....