TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year under appeal, he filed the return of income on 23.03.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,23,145/-. The AO framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 27.12.2006 wherein he made addition of Rs. 6,89,995/- in respect of credit entries in the bank account, the details of which are as under: (i) Deposits in Bank of Baroda, Atmajyoti Ashram Branch, Baroda (in the name of the assessee) Rs. 3,27,600/- (ii) Deposits in Mahila Utkaish Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Petlad (in the name of the assessee) Rs. 3,09,370/- (iii) Investment in Anyonya Mahila Utkarsh Coocrative Credit Society (in the name of the assessee's two sons - Ashish & Chirag and the assessee) Rs. 53,625/- Total Rs. 6,90,595/- 3.1 The aforesaid addition was made disregarding the explanation of the assessee that the above-mentioned credits were out of savings from salary, maturity proceeds of fixed deposits at Petland, loan from Anyonya Mahila Utkarsh Cooperative Credit Society (AMUCCS) and Mahila Utkarsh Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (MUCCSL). 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the deposits were out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted. Regarding the other items at Sr. No. 5 to 11 of deposits in Bank of Baroda, they have been explained to be of past savings. In this regard, no other evidence has been filed. I find that the assessee, who was a school teacher, was earning salary of around Rs. 12,000/- p.m. It is difficult to believe that the assessee could save Rs. 13,500/- Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 11,000/-, etc., out of his salaries in successive months. Accordingly, the assessee's explanation with regard to the credits appearing in Sr. Nos 5 to 11 in table 1 at page 2 of the assessment order (aggregating to Rs. 76,100/-) is held to be not satisfactory and hence the additions are confirmed. 5.3 Regarding table 2 at page 2 of the assessment order relating to deposits in MUCCSL, the first item is of Rs. 99,350/-. No explanation could be furnished in this regard even during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed to this extent. Similarly the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- on 18.7.2000 has been explained as being out of savings from salary. For the reasons recorded earlier, the explanation is held to be not satisfactory and unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- 3. 30.6.2000 30,000/- 4. 17.7.2000 20,600/- 5. 14.3.2001 1,00,000/- 6. 14.3.2001 43,130/- 7. 3.1.2000 3,745/- 8. 5.10.2000 3,375/- 9. 5.10.2000 3,375/- Total 4,25,725/- The balance of Rs. 2,64,270/- is confirmed." 5. Aggrieved with the above, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing before us, on behalf of the Assessee, Shri Vijay Ranjan appeared and filed a paper book containing 23 pagesl which, inter alia, include salary certificate of the assessee, namely, Shri Chaturbhai Mangalbhai Kachhia with English translation (page nos. 1 to 3), salary certificate of Smt. Minaxiben, wife of the assessee with English translation (page nos. 4 to 9), copy of bank account no.7/8 of Shri Chaturbhai in the Mahila Utkarsh Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Petlad (page nos. 10 to 19), copy of bank account of the assessee with Bank of Baroda (pages 20 to 22) and certificate from the Petlad Peoples Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Confirming loan of Rs. 50,000/- to Shri Chaturbhai on 14.7.2000 (page nos. 23 to 24). The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that both the lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urce of the said deposit. On this basis, he submitted that this evidence may kindly be admitted/ considered and appropriate relief be allowed against the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, Shri Samir Tekriwala, Sr. D.R., appearing on behalf of the Revenue, vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). The D.R. pointed out that the AO has allowed adequate opportunity to the assessee to produce all the evidences. The ld. D.R. pointed out that story of re-deposit was rightly rejected by the A.O. He submitted that from the copy of applications of withdrawal of G.P.F. dated 10.03.1999 it is seen that Rs. 5 lakhs was withdrawn for daughter's marriage and Rs. 3 lakhs for son's marriage. Therefore, it is unbelievable that Rs.8 lakhs invested for house property is out of GPF withdrawal. The ld. D.R. submitted that looking to the reasoning given by the AO in the assessment order, the addition was rightly made and after giving all the benefits of doubts, in the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition only to the extent of Rs. 2,64,270/- out of total addition of Rs. 4,25,725/-. Therefore, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 8. After hear....