Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM (A.Y:2011-12) Kiran Wamanrao Bhadange Income Tax Officer 701 Eltis Lodha Auram, Opp Ward 26(2)(4) R. No. 3103, 3rd Floor, B wing, Mittal Crompton Greve Ltd. Vs. Kanjur Marg, (E), Court, Nariman Point. Mumbai-42 Mumbai21 PAN No. AHUPB0088Q Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri Vivek Sunder, AR Assessee by Revenue by .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, DR .. Date of hearing 25-05-2017 Date of pronouncement .. 07-06-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of CIT(A)-46, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-46/ITO-35(1)(5)/289/2014-15 dated 22-08-2016. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-26(20(4), Mumbai for the A.Y. 2011- 12 vide order dated Nil u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in restricting the addition at Rs 6.45 lakhs as out of the addition made by AO of Rs. 7.15 lakhs on account of cash deposit in HDFC Bank as unexplained.
Briefly stated facts are that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has deposited cash in the bank account i.e. cash deposit of Rs. 7.15 lakh in HDFC bank and Rs. 2.80 lakhs in Kotak Mahindra Bank. Before AO, assessee stated that these deposits are out of agricultural income from land at Nasik but he could not substantiate with any documentary evidence. Accordingly, addition was made. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who deleted the addition of unexplained cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 28.60 lakhs deposited in Kotak Mahindra bank and out of cash deposit of 7.15 lakhs in HDFC bank a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was Kiran Wamanrao Bhadange A.Y:11-12 deleted and retained addition of Rs. 6.45 lakhs by observing in Par 6.3 as under: -
“6.3 Cash Deposits of Rs.7,15,000/- in HDFC Bank
The Authorised Representative has submitted that the H DFC Bank A/c is a salary a/c and Savings Bank A/c belonging to the assessee. A perusal of the a/c shows that a sum of Rs. 7, 15,000/- is appearing as deposit in the said hank. During the appellate proceedings, the Authorised Representative has tiled cash flow statement explaining the deposits as out of cash in hand out of money withdrawn from the same HDFC a/c. The monthly statement was also furnished. I have gone through the monthly cash withdrawals deposits made by the assessee ['he following are the deposits / withdrawals for the period 01 -04-20 10 to 3 1 -03-20 1I
The withdrawals are all in the various range from Rs. 86,000/- to 14,000/- in various months. For the months of July & September, there is a cash deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, the total withdrawal itself is only Rs. 2,63,500/- till the month of July in the said financial year. The withdrawals are such that amount withdrawn would only be sufficient to meet the day to day requirements and cannot be considered as sufficient to explain the cash deposits of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- in the month of July & September. Also, if the assessee was having cash in hand, such regular withdrawals are net explained logically. The deposit of Rs.10,000/-, 40,000/- & 20,000/- in the month of Kiran Wamanrao Bhadange A.Y:11-12 November, December and January can also be considered as having been made out of cash in hand. Thus, out of the total addition of Rs.7,15,000/-, addition of Rs. 70,000/- is deleted and the balance of Rs.6,45,000/-is confirmed.”
Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.
I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I find from the arguments of both the sides and the case records that the assessee before AO or before CIT(A) could not substantiate the agricultural income claimed to have been received by assessee from land at Nasik. Also, find that the assessee has made deposits to the extent of Rs. 7.15 lakh in the HDFC Bank. Out of the same main deposits are 4 lakhs of July and 2 lakhs in the month of September. The assessee has also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in November, 40,000/- in December, 20,000/- in January and 45,000/- in February. It means that the total deposits in the bank account is Rs. 7.15 lakhs and CIT(A) has already allowed credit of withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 70 lakhs which would re-deposited. The assessee is having withdrawals almost Rs. 5.50 lakhs during the year and if I take the peak of the deposits which is almost Rs. 3 lakhs. In my view, at the best it should have been sustained. Accordingly, I sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs and delete the balance. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.