TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) has erred in law in upholding the addition U/s 153A made by the AO as no incriminating document was found at the premises of the assessee during the course of search. 4. That the addition/disallowance made is unjust, arbitrary and is not based on any material on record. The CIT(Appeal) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,13,000/- out of addition of Rs.8,71,958/-. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- U/s 69 of the act on account of Cash deposit in the ABN AMRO Bank of the assessee. 6. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the cage, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.5,13,000/- U/s 69 of the act on account of Cash deposit in the Standard Charted Bank of the minor son. 7. That CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the deposit of Rs,8,13,000/- in the bank accounts is covered by the receipts from Assessee's relatives. 8. That the explanations given, evidence produced and material placed and made available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided in the case of Anil P. Khimanl Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2010-TIOL-177-ITAT-MUM dated February 23, 2010 wherein it was held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are not based on the material found as a result of search and hence the same are deleted. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi in the case Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatia Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, New Delhi vide ITA No. 2660 to 2665/DEL/2009 Assess merit Year. 2000-01, 2002-03 to 2006-07. ACIT Vs.' Sh. Anil Kumar Bhatia, ITA No. 2246/DEL/2009 Assessment Year 2000-01. Sh. Sanjay Bhatia Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 17, New Delhi ITA No. 2666 to 2672 Assessment Year 2000-01 to 2006-07 wherein it was held that since for all the Assessment Years in consideration, processing return u/s 143(1)a stood. completed, for return filed in due course before search, and no material being found in search thereafter, no addition can be made. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Calcutta Bench 'E' in the case of LMJ International Limited Vs. Deputy Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Master Aryavir Arora, arose from the fact that during the assessment proceedings under section 153A, the AO asked the appellant to explain the source of cash deposits in these bank accounts. Since the appellant failed to explain the sources, the AO treated the source of cash deposits In the above mentioned bank accounts as being unexplained and made the additions on account of unexplained credit. Aggrieved with the above action, the appellant made the submissions on this issue, the gist of which is as under :- "..........1) Unexplained deposit with ABN Amro Bank Rs. 3,40,000 The AO has stated in the assessment order that there are credit entries in the appellant bank account with ABN Amro Bank of the following amounts: Date Amount (Rs.) 24.4.2006 40,000 31.10.2006 1,00,000 6.11.2006 1,00,000 15.11.2006 1,00,000 3,40,000 The Assessing Officer added the above amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- by stating that no explanation has been furnished by the appellant in this respect. These are explained as under: It is submitted that the above amounts were received by the appellant from his father Shri Satnam Arora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant these could not be produced before the AO. It is therefore requested that the evidence now filed may kindly be admitted and considered for deciding the appeal. Without prejudice to above, it is also submitted that the Assessing Office has not given an opportunity/show cause to the appellant before making the various additions made in the assessment order. FINDING 7. I have gone through the above submissions of the appellant and have considered the facts and evidences on record. 7.1 It is seen that the total cash deposits in the appellant's and his son's bank * account are to the tune of Rs. 8,64,000. The appellant's plea is that the same is out of the total household withdrawals of Rs. 26,50,000 made by his father Mr. Satnam Arora with whom he is staying. 7,2 To verify the above contention during the appellate proceedings the appellant was asked to give the month wise break up of cash withdrawals made by Sh. Satnam Arora and link it with the cash deposits in his bank account as well as in the bank account of his minor son Master Aryavir Arora. 7.3 On linking/matching bank withdrawals made from the bank account of Sh.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er consideration, it is noticed that if the credit of withdrawals made by Mr. Satnam Arora is accepted ( to be the sources of deposit of Rs. 8,64,000 in appellant's and his son's bank account) then Mr. Satnam Arora (appellant's father) is not left with any funds to meet the household expenditure of his family from April, 2006 to November, 2006. 7.5 When the above discrepancy was pointed out to the appellant, he stated that the household expenses were met out of withdrawals of Rs. 8,43,183.57- made from the Satnam Overseas Exports in which Mr. Satnam Arora is partner. To this plea, the appellant was asked to give the month wise breakup of details of Rs. 8,43,183.57 and to tell whether these are cash withdrawals or not. But inspite of the opportunities given during the appellate proceedings, the appellant did not give any explanation/details of withdrawals of Rs. 8,43,183.57 made from Satnam Overseas Exports. Hence, in view of the above discussion, I hold that if the appellant's plea that the sources of deposits in his as well as his son's bank account's out of the withdrawals made by Mr. Satnam Arora is accepted, then in that event Mr. Satna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 7, 8 and 9 of the appeal, the addition has been disputed by the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed detailed speaking order on merits in paragraph 6 to 7.6 of his aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 01.04.2015; which is already reproduced in foregoing paragraph (B) of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 01.04.2015 of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel made submissions on the merits of the addition totaling Rs. 8,13,000/-, confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). For this purpose, the Ld. Counsel for assessee placed reliance on submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). He took us through the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to explain the submissions made on the merits of the additions. However, he left it to the discretion of the Bench to decide whether the assessee's explanation was acceptable. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) ["Ld. CIT(DR)", for short] relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO. He also relied on the judicial precedents in the cases of Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC)/[2016] / 239 Taxman ....