VINEET BAJORIA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-44(4), KOLKATA

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 01.07.2019 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2011-12.

After hearing rival contentions I find that the dispute in the present case pertains to an addition of ₹16,68,867/- made by the AO on the ground that certain deposits in the bank account with the SBI were explained. 3. The assessee explains that an amount of ₹1,000/- is opening balance at the beginning of the year. Hence, this amount cannot be added. On the amount of cash deposit of ₹4,55,000/- and ₹6 lakhs, the assessee explained that these were cash withdrawals from the capital accounts of the assessee in the partnership firm M/s. Patwari Selections. The balance sheet, profit & loss account and capital accounts of M/s. Patwari Selections, the partnership firm, which is an income tax assessee, has been filed as evidence of the withdrawals. I find that the ld. CIT(A) at page 11 of his order disbelieved the claim of the assessee on the ground that, these documents do not inspire any confidence. I am unable to appreciate such findings of the ld. CIT(A). When the assessee has supported the source of cash deposits, as withdrawals from his capital Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vineet Bajoria. account in the partnership firm, with statements of account, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. of the partnership firm the Revenue cannot reject the same without verification. As M/s. Patwari Selections is also assessed to tax. It was for the Revenue to disprove the claim of the assessee with evidence. Mere rejection on the ground that, these final accounts etc. do not transpire confidence, in my opinion is incorrect. Thus, I delete the addition of ₹1,000/-, ₹4,55,000/- and ₹6 lakhs made as unexplained cash deposits in S/B account.

Coming to the amount of ₹6,12,867/-, the assessee explained that this is not a cash deposit and it was money received as maturity of an LIC policy and that the same was received by cheque from LIC. The assessee supported this claim by way of a certificate from LIC which is place at page 14 of the paper book. The policy number which matured is 410868134 and the cheque issued by LIC is being no. 328698 dated 24.02.2011. In view of these evidences, the addition is unwarranted. Hence, I delete the same. In the result, all the additions made in this case are deleted.

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 13th March, 2020.