TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken in Form 36 are as follows: "1. That the all notices issued under Section 142(1), being unsigned and unauthenticated, is invalid in law, and the assessment proceedings based thereon are liable to be quashed. 2. That the authorities below erred in treating cash deposits of Rs.25,71,000 as unexplained despite the same being fully supported by opening cash balance and prior withdrawals for business purposes recorded in the Cash Account; rejection thereof is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 3. That the Revenue is trying to step into the shoes of the 61 years old physically disabled appellant and trying to make business decisions on his behalf, which is in complete violation of law." 3. Brief facts emerging f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that there were withdrawals during the concerned year from the said bank account and the same amount was deposited back during the concerned year. However, on perusal of the various entries shown in the bank account furnished by the appellant, it emerges that what he is trying to term as cash withdrawal, to mislead the revenue, are in fact cheque payment which implies that the amount was withdrawn by someone else rather than the appellant, as the appellant has been trying to wrongly project, in an attempt to mislead the assessment proceedings as well as the present proceedings. The transactions carried out on 13.04.2016, 16.04.2016, 21.04.2016, 26.04.2016, 29.04.2016, 09.05.2016, 16.05.2016 and 17.05.2016 typically shows the remarks as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs are explained by the withdrawals of equivalent amount made on 29.06.2016 and 30.06.2016. 5.2 However, the deposits in bank account during interim period amounting to Rs. 8.10 lakhs plus the expenditure on agricultural expenses amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs as disclosed in the said statement totalling Rs. 13.10 lakhs could not be satisfactorily explained. 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contention and the bank statement and computation of income and materials before us. We are of the opinion that we restrict the addition of Rs. 13.10 lakhs instead of the addition of Rs. 21.71 lakhs and the assessee will get a consequential relief. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Ord....