Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 228 - ITAT AMRITSARAddition u/s. 69/69A - unexplained cash payment - Held that:- In the present case section 69A which is more aptly applicable. This is as not only is the assessee found to have incurred expenditure during the relevant year, the same stands met by payments in cash during the relevant year. It is only these cash payments, and not the total expenditure actually incurred, on account of it being unexplained as to source thereof, which is brought to tax as its income. No correlation between expenditure incurred and the payments in cash, so that they pertain to specific item/s of expenditure, has been made at any stage, including before us, with in fact, the cash being paid in round figures while the expenditure is in odd figures. In the absence of any correlation and, in fact, apparent contradiction, the assessee’s case is without any factual basis. The assessee’s next argument is, again, only to be stated to be rejected. It is pleaded that as the partners had surrendered a total of ₹ 54 lacs, the same be telescoped against the addition that may stand to arise in the case of the assesseefirm. This is as it is they who made the cash available to the firm, which commenced operations during the current year, i.e., in June, 2006. The income referred to and offered by the partners is for AY 2009-10, which is the second year in appeal before us. How could the income generated, even if translating into cash, during the previous year relevant to AY 2009-10, be conceivably available during the relevant year, i.e., f.y. 2006-07. The ld. AR had no answer. Finally, the assessee’s states that there has been some duplication in arriving at the figure of ₹ 9.92 lacs. This is as the same figure of cash expenditure gets included both from the account of the expenditure as well as of the vendor, i.e., from whom the relevant goods/services stand sourced. We were taken through the relevant sheet by the ld. AR, to exhibit the same. We find this as correct. Also, it was shown by him that in a couple of cases, the payment made in April, 2007 has been also included while casting the total payment for which addition has been made.We, therefore, subject to the verification by the A.O. in the matter, direct for the deletion of the addition to the extent of the said duplication, clearly specifying the same in his order, as well as of the addition qua cash payments made after March 31, 2007. - Decided partly in favour of assessee Unexplained expenditure - Held that:- Considering from the stand-point of the source of expenditure, the document explains the source of cash, being from the project owners in the main, and from the partners (specified by name, with their respective amounts). In fact, none of the documents listing the expenditure, save three, list the dates on which the same is incurred. How could then it be said that the same is incurred during the relevant previous year, i.e., f.y. 2008-09, even as that before 26.06.2008 would get explained on the basis of the receipt and expenditure statement. The three documents refer to a date post 26.06.2008, so that the expenditure does not pertain to these projects, and is thus liable to be added as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C. The amounts per the three documents aforesaid totals to ₹ 11,660/-. An addition to this extent is thus confirmed, and the balance directed for deletion.
|