TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 09.04.2024 for A.Y.2017-18 by CIT(A) 13, Ahmedabad upholding the addition of Rs.15,15,000 made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned additions. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying / out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO noted that on reviewing the bank statements of the assessee, a total of Rs. 18,74,511 was credited into the bank accounts (including Rs. 15,15,000 deposited in cash during the demonetization period), along with Rs. 3,59,264 credited through transfers and other deposits. Since the total credits in the bank accounts were not satisfactorily explained, the AO treated the unexplained sum of Rs. 18,74,511 as undisclosed income under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee's primary contention in this case revolves around the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, amounting to Rs. 15,15,000, which the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the instant case, we observe that during the proceedings before Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted additional evidence, for which CIT(Appeals) obtained a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The assessee clarified that the amount deposited into the bank account represented the repayment of previous loans given to relatives, which were returned to the assessee during demonetization period. A detailed tabular chart giving details of relatives from whom cash was received was also furnished before Ld. CIT(Appeals), during the course of appellate proceedings (at page 25 of Ld. CIT(Appeals) order). According to the assessee, during the demonetization period, these relatives offered cash in the form of SBN (specified bank notes) to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ept unused for such a long period of time. In the case of Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker 88 taxmann.com 382 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that when assessee had demonstrated that he had withdrawn cash from bank and there was no finding by authorities below that this cash available with assessee was invested or utilized for any other purpose, it was not open to authority to make addition on basis that assessee failed to explain source of deposits. In the case of Ajit Bapu Satam 147 taxmann.com 222 (Mumbai - Trib.), the ITAT held that where Assessee contended that cash which was withdrawn by assessee from bank was deposited in very same bank account and he provided details of cash withdrawal from bank account and cash so withdrawn was lyin....