TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the Ld. AO rejecting the explanations and supporting filed that cash deposited earlier into Bank on 12.06.2015 was withdrawn from Bank after 12 days on 22.06.2015 through employee of firm i.e. Shri Prem Shankar Mishra whose affidavit was also filed as the cash withdrawn was not needed. Prayed that appellant discharged the burden cast u/s 69A of proving the case deposit into Bank of Rs. 4,00,000/- the addition is arbitrary and kindly be deleted. 2. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,874/- made by the Ld. AO which is cash deposit in Bank from known sources. Prayed that the addition of Rs. 21,874/- kindly be deleted" 2. The relevant facts emanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not go to the bank for depositing or withdrawing the cash, it is the employee(s) who carry this work. The Assessing Officer in the remand report has pointed out that this contention of the appellant is completely unacceptable. On examining the bank account statement, it can be seen that except for this instance, at no date anywhere it had been seen that the service of Shri Prem Shankar Mishra had been used for withdrawing the cash from the bank in this manner. Therefore, the above submission of the appellant cannot be accepted. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant produced copy of Affidavit of Shri Prem Shankar Mishra. By producing affidavit of Shri Prem Shankar Mishra, the appellant is trying to validate the transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash deposits of Rs. 1.15,000/- on 22-06-2015 was the withdrawn money of Rs. 5,00,000/- is not acceptable, as that source was already rejected. Therefore, only Rs. 93,126/- was available with the appellant, as the same is carried forward cash in hand, being available with him on 22-06-2018. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 21,674/- was added back to his return of income, as the unexplained money, being sourced from undisclosed sources. The findings and addition made by the Assessing officer is upheld." 3. I have carefully perused the documents on record, heard the submissions of the parties herein, analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In this case, there was a disallowance by the AO regarding cash deposits of Rs. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 250 clause (4) & (6) has been abruptly violated by the first appellate authority. That, further neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had brought on record negating facts that the such amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not withdrawn by the assessee. The revenue has also not brought on record any evidence to show any unaccounted source of money by the assessee so to say that the assessee had deposited such money from un-disclosed source. 5. Admittedly, the department acknowledges that such money deposited is from the declared source of income of the assessee. The revenue should have conducted necessary enquiry to understand the genuinity of the transaction which it had failed to do. 6. Rather, the AO on the basis of mere suspicion....