JASU BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

During assessment proceedings, pursuant to certain Annual Information Return [AIR], it was found that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.26.80 Lacs during impugned AY in one of the Saving Bank account held with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Nariman point Branch. The assessee submitted that the said deposits were out of earlier withdrawals made during the impugned AY and therefore the deposits were duly explained. However not convinced, the Ld. AO worked out peak balance of Rs.14.12 Lacs against the same and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s 68.

Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 18/09/2017 where CIT(A) noted the cash deposits/withdrawal pattern and while rejecting the assessee’s submissions, enhanced the impugned additions to Rs.26.80 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

The Ld. Authorized Representative for assesse [AR], drawing our attention to the bank statement and summary of withdrawals and deposits made from / in the said bank accounts and submitted that all the deposits Jasu Bajaj Assessment Year: 2013-14 made by the assessee were duly supported by earlier withdrawals from the same very account and therefore the impugned additions were not justified. Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] justified the action of the Lower Authorities.

We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused the bank statement of the assessee. It is observed that the assessee has opening credit balance of more than Rs.1.44 crores in the said saving account and all the cash deposits made in the said bank account are duly supported by earlier withdrawals from the same very account. Secondly, most of the cash withdrawals and deposits in the said account are carried at Churchgate Branch only. It is trite law that additions could not be made merely on the basis of suspicions, doubts or mere conjectures. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the said cash deposits represent unexplained cash credit and nothing in law debars the assessee from withdrawing the cash from the bank and then again depositing it back into the same. Hence, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the stand of the revenue, in our opinion was not justified. Therefore, by deleting the same, we allow assessee’s appeal.

Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order.

Sd/- Sd/- (C. N. Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated :21. 03.2018 Sr.PS:- Thirumalesh आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु� / CIT – concerned 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard File 6.