TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ITO, Ward 1(2), Mysuru [ld. AO] was partly allowed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal. 3. This appeal is late by 55 days and therefore the assessee filed an application for condonation of the delay along with. It was stated that assessment order was passed on 19/1/2019 which was further rectified on 24/02/2020. In the rectification order the amount of addition was reduced. Therefore the appeal was filed before the learned CIT - A 18/6/2020. This appeal was disposed of by the learned CIT - A on 4/3/2025. The appeal was filed on 25/7/2020. Therefore there is a delay. The delay is on account of the employment of the assessee because due to his employment there was limited access to his email and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturn as well as large cash deposit during the year compared to return income. 7. Notice under section 143 (2) was issued on 16/8/2080. The assessee was asked to explain the difference. The assessee responded that assessee is an employee with Bharat Earth movers Ltd and has been sanctioned a housing loan from IDBI Bank. Assessee submitted F.No.16, promotion letter. As per the letter the annual gross total income of the assessee is Rs. 930,817. After claiming deduction, it was shown as Rs. 806,320/-. The increase in salary was also explained. The learned assessing officer examined the claim of deduction made by the assessee. It was found that there is a difference of Rs. 2,26,771/- between the total salary received and total salary shown ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8,50,000 is an arithmetic error which should have been taken as Rs. 570,600. Therefore, assessed income was reduced to Rs. 1,149,020/-. 9. The assessee aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned CIT - A. In the appellate proceedings the assessee challenged the addition made during the rectification proceedings. It was claimed that the assessee has not deposited cash on various date of Rs. 1,070,600 in the bank account of the assessee, however the lower authorities have failed to recognise that assessee has also withdrawn cash on various dates amounting to Rs. 1,108,500. The entire cash deposit was made from the savings amount withdrawn from time to time. It was further stated that assessee is an Assistant General Manager with BEML Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,108,500 on 117 occasions. The learned CIT - A believed that out of Rs. 1,108,500 withdrawn by the assessee, the cash deposited during the demonetisation period on five occasions of Rs. 117,000 is treated as explained. However, he did not accept the explanation to the extent of the balance sum of Rs 453,600. We find that assessee has enough cash withdrawals from his bank account amounting to Rs. 1,108,500/- out of that a sum of Rs. 453,600/-, he has re-deposited. There is no reason to disbelieve the explanation of the assessee on the assumption that a person drawing salary does not indulge in the habit of first unnecessarily withdrawing money and from the bank and then depositing the same after a few days. We ....