2025 (1) TMI 805

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....') by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act after obtaining prior approval of the Pr. CIT of Income-tax, Karnal. The AO observed that section148 notice was returned back due to incomplete address. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued asking the assessee to furnish ITR for assessment year 2011-12, details of bank accounts along with statements thereof and source of cash deposits with the supporting evidences. Since no compliance from the assessee's side AO issued 144 notice. Since no response from the assessee's side was received AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act and added the cash deposit of Rs. 17,82,000/- as income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee prefer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id ab-initio as no notice under section 148 is served on the applicant for initiation of proceedings u/1 148. 3. That the ld. Commission of Income tax (appeal) erred in law in passing the order as the ITR filed by the appellant has not been considered while framing the assessment. 4. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,57,996.00 as the deposit has been made out of cash withdrawal. 5. That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law in covering the deposit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 6. That the reasons recorded by the A.O. are against fats as no notice has been taken of returned filed by the assessee on 11.07.2011 resulting in initiating proceedings u/s 148 b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8-Nov-10 20-Oct-10 200,000.00 49,000.00 9-Nov-10 21-Oct-10 100,000.00 49,000.00 10-Nov-10 25-Oct-10 300,000.00 49,000.00 11-Nov-10 27-Oct-10 100,000.00 49,000.00 12-Nov-10     100,000.00 13-Nov-10     220,000.00 15-Nov-10     49,000.00 3-Dec-10     49,000.00 8-Dec-10     49,000.00 19-Feb-11     49,000.00 22-Feb-11     49,000.00 23-Feb-11     49,000.00 1-Mar-11     49,000.00 3-Mar-11     2,000.00 3-Mar-11     50,000.00 3-Mar-11     40,000....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is based on only one adverse observation which is met as under: 1. At para 5.3.2, page 9 of the appeal order, Ld. CIT(A) has alleged that cash withdrawal started on 05.10.2010 on which date there was a transfer of amount of Rs. 13,64,000/- into the appellant's bank account which resulted in peak credit of Rs. 14,57,996/- for the appellant. This credit entry that resulted in the balance from which the chain of deposits and withdrawals started is not explained. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that assessee has explained the source of cash which are being withdrawn from the bank as mentioned at PB 3-4 of written submission and herein also. Further, it is stated tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....drawn cash from 05.10.2010 to 27.10.2010 which is withdrawal of Rs. 20 lakh during this period and the same was redeposited on 28.10.2010 and in subsequent dates. He submitted that cash deposits are out of cash withdrawals. In this regard, I observed the case of ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla & Ors. (2009) 121 TTJ 0366 wherein it was held as under :- "27. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this explanation of the assessee was found correct that against these five deposits on dt. 14th June, 1996, Rs. 31,000; 21st July, 1997, Rs. 1,27,000; 18th Sept., 1997, Rs. 22,000; 4th Oct., 1997, Rs. 26,000 and on 7th Nov., 1997, ....