Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.55 seconds)Smt. Ritu Agarwal, Orissa vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Jaipur on 18 November, 2020
5 Smt. Krishna Addition for cash deposits of Rs.68,95,000/- in bank
Agarwal Vs. ITO account was deleted holding that cash withdrawals in
(ITAT, Jodhpur) earlier two years have not been disputed by the revenue
and only reason why the explanation of the assessee has
not been accepted is that keeping huge cash at home for
such a long period is beyond any imagination. Mere
absence of supporting documentation cannot be a
reason enough to allege any malafide in the explanation
so submitted especially where the assessee has
explained and duly disclosed the source of deposits in
the bank account out of which the withdrawals have
been made and has thus established the necessary
linkage and availability of cash in hand. Mere time gap
between withdrawals and deposits cannot be a sole
basis for rejecting the explanation of the assessee
regarding availability of cash in hand where there is no
material that amount so withdrawn has been utilized
somewhere else.
The Acit, Range-Ii vs Baldev Plaza on 30 June, 2004
8 ACIT Vs. Baldev There being no material with IT authorities to show that
Raj Charla 121 the amounts of cash deposits in question, admittedly
TTJ 366 (ITAT, withdrawn from bank and assessee concern, were
Delhi) utilized for any other purpose, no addition could be
made only on the ground that there was time gap
between the withdrawals and the corresponding cash
deposits.
P.C. Ray And Co. (India) Private Ltd. vs A.C. Mukherjee, Income-Tax Officer And ... on 15 May, 1958
In our view,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.
(supra) has held that the AO cannot complete the assessment purely on guess
and without any reference 9 ITA Nos. 1727/H/14 Sri M. Prabhakar to
evidence or any material at all.
Ashok Kumar Banthia, Bikaner vs Dcit, Central Circle, Bikaner on 6 September, 2021
11. Ashok Kumar Affidavit submitted by assessee cannot be rejected
Banthia Vs. DCIT without any plausible reason.
Jaya Aggarwal vs Income Tax Officer on 13 March, 2018
It is further submitted that as per Indian tradition and customs, Indian ladies
keep their savings/assets in the form of cash with them for various purposes
not limited to their children marriage, support the family for future
contingency situations etc. They prefer cash savings more safe as compared
to bank balances as they even hide their savings from their husband, children
and other family members. You'rhonour's kind attention is invited towards
decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jaya Aggarwal Vs. ITO
in ITA no. 315/2005 decided on 13.03.2018 (paper book page no. 46 to 50,
relevant page no. 49 to 50), wherein the Hon'ble High Court deleted the
addition for unexplained cash deposits where the delay in depositing back of
cash, which was withdrawn for an unfruitful purpose, was explained through
an oral evidence. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be
applied and is sufficient to discharge onus. Probability means likelihood of
anything to be true. Probability refers to appearance of truth or likelihood of
being realized which any statement or event bears in light of the present
evidence (Murray's English Dictionary). Evidence can be oral and cannot be
disregarded on this ground. Hence, the ld. A.O. rejection of oral submissions
of the appellant regarding past savings, stridhan, cash withdrawals etc. is not
justified in lieu of theory of preponderance of probability accepted by Hon'ble
Courts.
Smt. Srilekha Banerjee And Others vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 27 March, 1963
Abhilasha Jain vs DCIT
8.7 The issues relevant to the demonetization of high denomination
notes was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha
Banerjee v. Commissioner of Income-tax. [1963] 49 ITR (SC) 112; [1964] 2
SCR 552 (SC). The court held that where assessee contended that high
denomination notes represented not cash balance but some other money and
he failed to explain source of said money, department was justified in
treating value of said high denomination notes as income of assessee from
undisclosed sources. Where the explanation of assessee was unconvincing
and one which deserves to be rejected, the department can reject the
explanation and draw the inference that the amount represents income
either from the sources already disclosed by the assessee or from some
undisclosed source.
M.L. Tewary vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 1 September, 1954
and M. L. Tewary vs. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 630 (PAT.), have
respectively held that where the assessee could not satisfactorily prove
source and nature of amount which he encased on demonetization, revenue
authorities were perfectly justified in drawing an inference that said sum
was of an income nature.
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka on 23 February, 1962
2 CIT Vs. K. The period of four years is not so long period as to
Sreedharan 201 rebut the presumption regarding the continued
ITR 2010 (Kerala availability of amount.