TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") dated 09.07.2024 relates to A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: "(a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by AO on account of cash withdrawal of Rs. 8,89,36,000/- treated as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of IT Act? (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal." 3. The solitary issue in present appeal, it was pointed out, was the huge cash withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank account amounting in to Rs. 8,89,36,000/- treated as unexplained expenditure of the assessee by the Assessing Officer under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of the assessee as unexplained expenditure in terms of Section 69C of the Act. 5. The matter was carried in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee reiterated the contention made before the Assessing Officer. He further contended that the Assessing Officer had made the addition without appreciating the evidences filed before him evidencing the fact of cash withdrawals made for making payment to farmers from whom the bulls were purchased. He furnished all evidences of business carried out by him of sale and purchase of bulls to the Ld. CIT(A) who forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer for his report. The remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer and the assessee's response was also taken by the Ld. CIT(A) to the rem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and also the documents submitted before us in Paper Book filed by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. The issue before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly treated the amount of cash withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account of Rs. 8.89 crores as duly explained and not in the nature of unexplained expenditure as treated by the Assessing Officer. 8. The case of the assessee is that he is in the business of taking bulls from farmers and sending them to slaughter house and on the receipt of money from the slaughter houses in his bank account he withdraws cash for making payment to farmers who lived in villages. To support his explanation, the assessee filed: * th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t so made by the assessee. We fail to understand that when the Assessing Officer has accepted one leg of a business carried on by the assessee, how could then the Assessing Officer have disputed the incurrence of the other leg of the business which was imperative for carrying on the business in totality. The Assessing Officer having accepted the fact of the assessee having made sales of bulls to slaughter houses, it does not make sense at all for thereafter rejecting the entire purchases made by the assessee of bulls. The Assessing Officer could have rejected both sales and purchases of bulls holding that there was no business of trading in bulls carried out by the assessee at all and that these were all sham transaction, but this was not t....