Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 968 - AT - Income TaxAddition on difference between balance in account as per the books and the balance as per bank statement - difference between the books of accounts of the assessee as on 31.03.1990 and bank statement of Uco Bank, Harnam Street Branch - HELD THAT:- Bank statement relates to the year 1993 and therefore we find merit in the contention of the Ld. A.R. that it is rather impossible to produce the statement belonging to 1993 in the year 2018. Moreover, the fact of the cheques not presented in the bank in the subsequent year has been confirmed by the AO after enquiring the same from the UCO bank. Amount of cheques issued by the assessee which were reversed subsequently for the reason that same were not presented for payment. So far as the discrepancies in the dates are concerned, we do not find that any minor mistake as such would lead to such a heavy addition in the hands of the assessee that too when the verification of facts are almost impossible due to the fact that these entries belong to 1993. These cheques were never encashed from the bank a finding qua which has been given in the remand report by the AO after carrying out verification from then UCO bank - addition can not be made merely because it was not explained by the assessee by overlooking the facts on records which testified that the difference between the books of account of the assessee and bank statement of UCO bank are attributed to cheques/advices issued but not encashed and presented in the bank - we direct the AO to delete the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee. Assessment of interest income - whether to be assessed as cash system of accounting instead of mercantile system of accounting - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sudheer Mehta A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12 [2017 (12) TMI 1668 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and same is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. Penalty us 271(1)(c) - whether notice barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of section 275 of the Act, the A.O. ought to have passed the penalty order u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on or before 31.05.1995 as the ld CIT(A) passed the order on 28.10.1994. Since the penalty order has been passed on 28.04.2006, in our considered view ,the same was beyond the limitation period and hence void ab initio. As the penalty order passed beyond the time limit permissible u/s. 275(l)(a) of the Act and is invalid and void ab initio. Consequently the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|