BHIKHABHAI MANGALBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), VADODARA

The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law, and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- made in respect of cash deposited in appellant’s bank account. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

That on facts and in law, the entire addition ought to have been deleted as prayed for.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.

On perusal of the records, we find that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.15,00,000 on account of cash deposits made by the assessee in three different bank accounts, as detailed below:

The assessee furnished copies of bank statements showing that on 18.07.2016, withdrawals were made of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.7,00,000/-, and Rs.3,00,000/-, which were subsequently re- deposited in the respective bank accounts on 16.11.2016, 14.11.2016, and 25.11.2016. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further explained that these withdrawals were made for the purpose of construction of a house. However, as the construction activity did not materialize, the withdrawn funds were re-deposited into the same bank accounts. On verification, we find that the deposits are duly supported by corresponding withdrawals from the same bank accounts. Considering these facts and the explanation of the assessee, we are of the view that the source of deposits stands satisfactorily explained. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹15,00,000/- cannot be sustained. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3–

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.