TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the ld. AO may kindly be quashed and delete. 3. Rs. 14,87,500/- : The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,87,500/- made by the ld. AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period u/s 69A as alleged unexplained money. The Ld. AO also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. The ld. AO has also grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case invoking the provisions of Sec. 115BBE for taxing the income at the higher rate, without issue any show cause notice and also not applicable in the present case. The Ld. AO has also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the provisions of Sec. 115BBE so invoked are also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the time of hearing of the appeal noted that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by taking into consideration the order of the AO with the narration at page 3 that ''the AO has discussed the issue in detail at Paras 2,3 and 4 of the impugned order. It is seen that during the assessment proceedings the assessee stated that the source of cash deposits of Rs. 14,87,500/- as out of past withdrawals which could not be substantiated with documentary evidence and hence remained unexplained.'' 3.2 However, at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is noted that the ld. AR of the assessee has not advanced any submission in connection with Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee. Hence, the same are dismissed. 4.1 As regards Ground No. 3 and 4 of the case, the Bench perused the assessment order, ld. CIT(A)'s, order and material available on record and it is noted that the assessee is a regular Income Tax assessee and filed ROI for the year under consideration on dt. 24.03.2018 declaring the total income of Rs. 8,43,970/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of capital gain/loss on sale of property and cash deposit in the bank account during the demo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....selected the case of the assessee for limited scrutiny on the issue of capital gain/loss on sale of property and cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period notices. However admittedly there was no sale of the property during the year. Hence proceedings are invalid, illegal and liable to be quashed. 2. Correct facts and evidences have not been considered rather proceed on assumption and suspicion: 1.1 As the assessee is a regular IT assessee from last many years. The credit or cash deposit in his bank account were out of the withdrawal made in earlier months from same bank account and the ld. AO himself admitted that the withdrawals as appearing in the bank account for the F.Y. 2016-17 upto November, 2016 are of Rs. 23,65,000/-. As the cash withdrawn were laying as cash in hands with the assessee, when the demonetization was declared the assessee had to deposit this cash in the bank account, as the assessee could not used that cash withdrawals. Thus the cash has been accumulated due to withdrawals from earlier months and was within the cash in hand. In support we filed the bank statements also enclosed(PB10-21) herewith which clears all the position a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doubted. Other side onus lay upon the AO has not discharged his burden lay upon him with the evidences. Merely raising doubt and suspicion on the recorded transactions cannot be taken a valid basis to disown his claim, which are based on documents/papers and records. Documentary evidences furnished clearly clarifies that on occasion at the time of deposit in bank account, assessee had sufficient availability of cash which is also not disputed. Entire transaction of withdrawal and deposit are duly reflected in the bank account of the assessee and are verifiable from relevant records. The ld. AO has not brought on record the evidence that the assessee has utilized these cash anywhere or in any other assets or any other mode. 5. When source of cash deposit is explained and it is evident that it is the her own cash of the assessee which has been deposited in bank account, then there is no question of making addition under the unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act 1961. Directly covered matter: Recently this Honble Tribunal under the same facts and circumstances in the case of Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 53/JODH/2021 dt. Sep 7, 2021 (2021) 63 CCH 0048 Jodh Trib it has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of deposits in bank account out of which withdrawals have been made and has thus established necessary linkage and availability of cash in hand-Mere time gap between withdrawals and deposits cannot be a sole basis for rejecting explanation of assessee regarding availability of cash in hand where there is no material that amount so withdrawn has been utilized somewhere else and thus supports case of assessee-Addition so made be deleted-Assessee's appeal allowed. This has again followed in the case of Smt. Suraj Kanwar Devra vs ITO ITA 50/Jodh/2021 dt. 23.11.2021 . 6. Further the ld.AO has not provided that where such withdrawals have been utilized nor there is any evidence on record that the earlier withdrawals have been utilized in any other assets or for any other purpose, other side the assessee has submitted evidence in the form of bank statements that the cash has been utilized in re-depositing in the bank account and a documentary evidence cannot be discarded on the basis of assumption, presumption, suspicion and guess work." 4.4 On the other hands the ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 4.5 After carefully considering the orders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limited scrutiny to verify "Cash deposits during year-AO treated cash deposits as undisclosed income of assessee by making addition as unexplained cash deposits in bank account u/s 69A-CIT(A) has confirmed addition made by AO-Held, it is not in dispute that bank account which is in name of assessee has been operated by her and cash has also been deposited by her-Thus, factum of bank account belonging to assessee and deposit of cash by assessee herself is not in dispute and therefore, in such circumstances, Assessing officer is well within his jurisdiction to enquire about source of such deposits and seek explanation from assessee and examine whether explanation so furnished is reasonable, appropriate and satisfactory in facts and circumstances of present case-Assessee has explained that out of earlier year's cash withdrawals from her bank account which were available as cash balance assessee had deposited a sum in her bank account during year under consideration-Assessee in her return of income for A.Y 2016-17 has disclosed sale consideration on sale of plot of land for Rs 1,31,45,200/- and offered capital gains to tax-Sale consideration equivalent to stamp duty value has been....