Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM
Assessee by Shri Pravesh Agarwal (AR) Revenue by Shri Mohammed Rizwan (Addl.CIT) Date of Hearing 06/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 06/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-45, Mumbai dated 11/09/2018 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
The grievance of the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 6.50 lacs upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of cash paid for purchase of residential flat.
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessment of the assessee was reopened on Suresh H. Thakkar Vs CIT(A)-45, Mumbai getting information from DGIT that the assessee had made cash payment of Rs. 13.00 lacs for purchase of flat and no return of income was filed. A search and seizure action was carried out on M/s Ekta and Bhoomi group by the Investigation Wing of the Department and on the basis of documents found during the search it was alleged that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- in cash during March 2010 for purchase of a residential flat. Thereafter the assessee’s assessment was reopened U/s 147 and notice U/s 148 of the Act was served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted day wise cash book and bank statements of saving bank accounts and of proprietory concern highlighting each cash withdrawals pertaining to the cash available of Rs. 13,00,000/- with him as on 11/03/2010 out of total cash balance as on that day of Rs. 15,14,150/- was paid to the builder alogwith source of the same. However, the A.O. did not agree with the assessee’s contention and added Rs. 13.00 lacs U/s 69 of the Act.
By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) accepted availability of cash to the extent of Rs. 6.50 lacs and confirmed balance addition.
The main contention of the ld. CIT(A) was that it is not possible to believe that all cash withdrawn during the F.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was available with assessee for giving to the builder. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that generally, human behavior is small amounts
Suresh H. Thakkar Vs CIT(A)-45, Mumbai are withdrawn for immediate expenditure but not to keep at home.
The expenditure of Rs. 10,000/- per month accounted in cash summary for living and household expenses during these years was found to be unbelievable. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.
We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that before the lower authorities, the assessee has filed detailed statement of date wise withdrawal from his bank accounts during the F.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10. We also found that as per the cash statement so submitted, there was a cash balance of Rs. 15,14,150/- as on 11/03/2010, out of total cash balance as on that date of Rs. 15,14,150/-. The assessee had paid cash of Rs. 13.00 lacs to the builder. The lower authorities have doubted the availability of cash on the plea that the cash was withdrawn by the assesee from his bank account in the earlier year and was not available for giving the same to the builder. Neither the A.O. nor the ld. CIT(A) has brought any material on record to suggest that the cash so withdrawn by the assessee was utilized for some other purposes and was not available with him on the date of payment.
We also found that the correctness of date wise statement of withdrawal of cash from the bank account and deposit in the bank
Suresh H. Thakkar Vs CIT(A)-45, Mumbai account was neither faulted nor doubted by any of the lower authorities. Under these facts and circumstances, there is no justification on the part of the ld. CIT(A) for accepting only Rs. 6.50 lacs out of total addition of Rs. 13.00 lacs so made by the A.O..Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the addition so made.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th March, 2020.