TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Common issues are raised in these appeals. Hence, they were heard together and are disposed off by this consolidated order. Identical grounds are raised in both the appeals, which read as follows:- 1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts and in law. CIT (A), 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A0 of Rs. 6,76,88,320/ for AY 2015-16 & Rs.3,21,67,534/- for AY 2016-17 w/s 69A of the Act. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to verify the deposits and work out the peak credit on the same and allow it for the purposes of computation of unexplained money by not appreciating that for getti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely withdrawn and utilized for lending to other borrowers. The AO did not accept the submission of the assessee for the reason that he has not identified the persons to whom the money has been advanced and from whom the money was collected back, the date of such collection and the mode of collection, etc. Accordingly, the entire cash deposits were added as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and assessments were completed for assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 4. Aggrieved by the assessments completed for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, it was submitted that assessee was carrying on the money lending business and amounts received were deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a paper-book enclosing therein the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the orders of the Tribunal in assessee's own case and other family members, wherein decision was taken to make addition only the unexplained peak balance as taxable and not the entire cash deposits. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) by following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2011-12 and 2014-15 in ITA Nos.36 and 166/CHNY/2018 (order dated 13.03.2019) had directed the assessee to submit the working of peak cash credit to the AO and explain the source for the same. The specific directions of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- "6.6. Thus, it can be seen that this issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment years 2011-12 & 2014-15, (supra). In one of the family member's case namely Shri A. Anbukkannan, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in TCA No.216 & 217 of 2019 (order dated 04.03.2019) had upheld the Tribunal order wherein addition was directed to be made on the basis of peak credit in order to remove the cascading effect of unexplained entries in the bank account. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Madras High Court reads as follows:- "5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in the present Appeals filed by the Revenue and we are of the considered opinion that only if the Assessee has failed to explain the entries in bank account, then the additions made....