Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
PER R.S.SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-8, Pune on 29-01-2018 in relation to the assessment year 2009-10.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.9.00 lakh towards unexplained source of cash deposited in the bank account.
2 ITA No.874/PUN/2018 Shri Rajendra P. Patni
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee
deposited a sum of Rs.9.00 lakh in his bank account. On being
called upon to explain the source of such deposit, the assessee
stated that a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- was earlier withdrawn from
the same bank account, which was re-deposited. As regards the
remaining amount, the assessee gave some explanation about
having received some gift received from his daughter-in-law.
Not convinced, the Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of
Rs.9.00 lac, which came to be sustained in the first appeal.
I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant
material on record. I have also gone through the bank passbook
in which the said sum of Rs.9.00 lakh was deposited. On perusal
of the said passbook, it is discernible that the assessee withdrew
cash of Rs.2.00 lakh on 29-03-2008; Rs.2,50,000/- on
02-04-2008; and Rs.70,000/- on 05-04-2008. Deposits in the
bank which have been added by the AO are Rs.1,50,000/- on
15-05-2008 and Rs.7,50,000/- on 16-05-2008. Thus, it is evident
that there is hardly a difference of less than two months in the
amount of withdrawals from the bank and re-deposits. It is not
the case of the AO that the amounts withdrawn amounting to
3 ITA No.874/PUN/2018 Shri Rajendra P. Patni
Rs.5,20,000/- were spent elsewhere. Once a particular amount
has been withdrawn which has not been spent anywhere, and if a
further deposit is made, the argument of the re-deposit in the
bank account cannot be ruled out without any other cogent
contrary material. In the given circumstances, I am satisfied that
the assessee successfully explained the source of cash deposit in
his bank account to the tune of Rs.5,20,000/-. The addition to
this extent is, ergo, deleted.
No argument was advanced by the ld. AR with regard to
the remaining addition. Thus, the differential amount of addition
of Rs.3,80,000/- is held to have been rightly sustained.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th July, 2019.
Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य� उपा�य�
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 25th July, 2019 सतीश
4 ITA No.874/PUN/2018 Shri Rajendra P. Patni
आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप �ेिषत �ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : �ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-8, Pune 4. The Pr.CIT-5, Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार
// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
Date 1. Draft dictated on 24-07-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 24-07-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed -- JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved -- JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *