TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....That under the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. is bad in law and thus needs to be quashed. 2. That the orders so framed are based in law and against the principles of natural justice and thereby needs to be quashed to uphold the principles of natural justice. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,85,594/- on account of unexplained deposit in Muthoot Finance Bank Ltd. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) have erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,85,594/- (Protective Basis) on account of unexplained deposit in Muthoot Finance Bank Ltd. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the GROUNDS OF APPEAL on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises." 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident individual engaged in the business of running a milk dairy. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was conducted on Karan Luthra group of assessees on 14.03.2014. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... However, CIT(A) sustained the balance addition of Rs 3,85,594/- in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. 10. Now the aggrieved assessee is before us. 11. Before us, the rival representatives have reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find force in the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee. There is no doubt that the loans were taken by the husband of the assessee in her name and he is repaying the said loan. These facts have evidentiary value as the letter of the husband clearly establish the fact that he has taken the loan on behalf of his wife and has acknowledged the same. As the assessee's husband has owned the loan, the addition of Rs 3,85,954/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on protective basis can not be sustained and is hereby deleted. The grounds of appeal is allowed. ITA No. 3400/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2012-13] 13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. is bad in law and thus needs to be quashed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urnover of the business. This reasoning is also not sound because it is the stand of the appellant that the business is being done in cash and it is not routed through the bank account. There is no material to controvert this position of the appellant. The third reasoning extended by the AO is regarding non-filing of return for A.Y. 2009-10. It is seen from perusal of the assessment order for the A.Y. 2009-10 that initially, ROI was not filed, however, it was filed on 13.12.2016 declaring income of Rs. 1,77,524/-. As stated above, in the A.Y. 2009-10, the AO has made addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of entry in the statement of bank account of Sh. Nagendra but the starting figure has been adopted as returned by the appellant without any modification. Still, in my humble opinion returned income of Rs. 1,77,524/- (for A.Y. 2009-10) does not fully explain the opening cash balance of Rs. 4,48,884/- (for A.Y. 2012-13) and it would be reasonable to accept opening balance at Rs. 1,68,108/- [equal to 1/3 of total of the returned income for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 (1/3rd of 1,77,524 + 1,56,663 + 1,70,137 = 1/3rd of 5,04,324/-)]. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 2,80,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the premises of the assessee on 29.04.2014. Based on the seized documents, assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29.12.2016 with total additions/disallowances of Rs. 32,72,759/- as against the returned income of Rs 4,31,605/-. 21. In the course of assessment, the AO made the following additions: i. Addition of Rs. 12,759/- (protective addition) on account of unexplained deposits in the Muthoot Finance Ltd. ii. Addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. 22. The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 12,759/- on protective basis as the amount is to be added in the hands of her husband (Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary). 23. We find that once the CIT(A) has given a finding that the deposit with Muthoot Finance pertains to the assessee's husband, the addition in the hands of the assessee on protective basis can not be sustained. The addition is accordingly deleted. The ground no 2 and 3 are allowed. 24. The AO in the assessment proceedings noticed that there was a cash deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 25.02.2014 in SBI account no. 00000031496678832. The assessee explained that same is 'advanc....