9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the AO on account of cash deposit in the bank account which the assessee failed to furnish the justification and source of the same before Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A)." 2. At the out, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed Considering the nature of issue and findings of the ld. CIT(A), the Bench proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. DR. 3. Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of Rs. 5,06,170/- filed on 31.07.2008 by the assessee, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In response, Shri Sanjeev Chaudhary, AR on behalf of the assessee, sought adjournment to 16.10.2009, when again adjournment was sought for 30th October, 2009. On that date none attended nor submitted any reply. Even the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, fixing the hearing for 29.12.2009 and subsequent notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued on 11.5.2010 went unresponded. Subsequently, in response to a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act issued on 4.8.2010 along a with a qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en examining the nature & genuineness of the various expenses. 8.. Ground no.3 in the appeal relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 2 lacs and Rs. 5,06,170/- out of Rs. 58,55,500/- made by the AO on account of cash deposited in the bank account. During the course of assessment proceedings on perusal of bank account no. 06121000004675 of the assessee with HDFC Bank it was noticed that the assessee deposited following amount in cash:- [In Rs. ] 03,07.2007 Cash deposited 3,60,000 09.07.2007 cash deposited 1,00,000 08.10.2007 cash deposited 2,84,500 18.10.2007 cash deposited 3,50,000 21.01.2008 cash deposited 10,00,000 14,02.2008 cash deposited 2,00,000 19.02.2008 cash deposited 10,000 22.02.2008 cash deposited 1,50,000 18.07.2008 cash deposited 2,00,000 05.08.2008 cash deposited 8,85,000 11.10.2008 cash deposited 5,00,000 16.10.2008 cash deposited 6,00,000 06.11.2008 cash deposited 5,00,000 Total 51,39,500 8.1 The assessee further maintained bank accounts no.01911000119218 with HDFC Bank Adrash Nagar, New Delhi, wherein he deposited cash of Rs. 7,16,000/- during the year under consideration as detailed hereunde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not produce any books of account before the AO. In the absence of books of accounts and the details as to whom such stock of glass was sold, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in reducing the addition by 50% while applying rate of 5 % on the sale of glass ,or deleting the addition on account of commission, without giving any opportunity to the AO. .Even the set off of 2 lacs and income returned by the assessee, allowed by the ld. CIT(A) against unexplained cash deposited in the bank, is not in accordance with law, therebeing no evidence of any nexus between the amounts and even when the AO had not been allowed any opportunity. 11.. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the facts of the case. Indisputably, the assessee did not produce any books of account before the AO despite number of notices issued by the AO, seeking various details and documents. As a result, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act and findings of the AO in that connection have been upheld by the ld. CIT (A). Thereafter, the AO attributed 10% of the stock of glass sold outside the books by way of profit while the ld. CIT(A) without giving an opportunity to the AO reduced the addition by 50% on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the ld. CIT(A) found that any of those so-called materials in the assessment order were not in fact supported by any evidence, it would be his duty to find out to what extent the estimate already made by the AO would be affected thereby. Even otherwise, the ld. CIT(A) did not allow any opportunity to the AO before reducing/deleting the disallowances. There is nothing to suggest that the ld. CIT(A) undertook any independent enquiries or even called for any report from the AO in the light of his findings in the assessment order, even while being fully aware that assessment had been completed u/s 144 of the Act . In these circumstances, especially when the ld. CIT(A) have not ascertained the complete facts nor recorded his specific findings on the relevancy of material gathered by the AO while there appears to be no apparent basis for reducing the addition on sale of glass or deleting the addition on account of commission, without giving any opportunity to the AO or even allowing the set off of Rs. 2 lacs and income returned by the assessee, against unexplained cash deposited in the bank ,without referring to any evidence, establishing nexus between the amounts and especially when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
