2025 (4) TMI 778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of 6,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and levying surcharge at 25 percentage which is not applicable on above addition. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee had withdrawn only small amounts of around Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- for his household and miscellaneous expenses. Hence, it is not possible to accumulate such huge amount as opening cash balance. Therefore, he added Rs.6,00,000/- and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed detailed submissions vide letter dated 06.03.2024 which is extracted at pages 4 to 10 of the appellate order. Subsequently, vide reply dated 13.06.2024, assessee submitted copy of cash book and cash flow statement for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. The CIT(A) has reproduced the reasons given by the AO for making the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- at para 4.1 at pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../-. However, the availability of cash cannot be disbelieved due to the opening cash balances of earlier years as well as cash withdrawals which are duly supported by the ITRs, cash book, bank statement etc., submitted by the assessee. The Ld. AR has relied upon the decisions of ITAT, Surat in the cases of Nileshkumar Maganlal Shah vs. ITO, ITA No.563/SRT/2023, Bhulabhai Nathubhai Patel vs. ITO, ITA No.67/SRT/2024 and Jigishaben Jatinkumar Bamania vs. ITO, in ITA No.4/SRT/2024. He, therefore, requested to delete the addition. 6. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) of the Revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. He submitted that there was no large cash withdrawal by the assessee. There was ....