SANGEET GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

The assessee has taken legal as well as merits of the additions sustained by ld. CIT(A) but during the course of proceedings, the ld. AR did not argue anything on the legal issues and on merits there is only one addition of Rs.2,80,000/- which the Assessing Officer had made on account of deposits in the bank.

The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- on 16.03.2010 against which the assessee had withdrawn Rs.1,50,000/- on 06.03.2010, Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.03.2010, Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.02.2010 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 25.02.2010 and therefore, the assessee had deposited the 2 Sangeet Gupta amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, out of cash available with him which the authorities below had wrongly denied. It was submitted that ld. CIT(A) has noted down the cash withdrawals in his order but upheld the addition only on the basis that assessee must have utilized the withdrawn amount for his business purposes. The ld. AR submitted that it is wrong on the part of the assessee authorities to hold that assessee had utilized the withdrawals to some other specific purposes. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following decisions: � Sr. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 � ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla and Others 121 TTJ 366 � CIT Vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 � DCIT Vs Shri Nikhil Nanda in � M/s Moongipa Investment Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2605/Del/2007 � Anil Gupta Vs ITO in ITA No. 5645/Del/2013 4. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below.

I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. It is undisputed fact that assessee had withdrawn the following amounts from her bank account which ld. CIT(A) has also noted in his order: “25.02.2010 Rs.5,00,000/- 26.02.2010 Rs.1,00,000/- 04.03.2010 Rs.1,00,000/- 05.03.2010 Rs.20,000/- 06.03.2010 Rs.1,50,000/-“ 6. The last withdrawals of Rs.1,50,000/- was on 06.03.2010 and there was another withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.03.2010. These withdrawals sufficiently cover the deposits made by assessee in her bank account on 16.03.2010. The authorities below has not pointed out any specific use of withdrawals made by assessee during earlier occasions and these continued to remain part of cash in hand and therefore, the 3 Sangeet Gupta action of authorities below is not justified and therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the Court on 31 s t day of May, 2019 at New Delhi)