Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (9) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nowhere in the aforesaid decision it was held that when business income was estimated by the Revenue then the Revenue is precluded from making addition on account of unexplained cash credit. Thus no force in the submission of the assessee - assessee has not offered any explanation with regard to the source of Rs. 30,40,000/- credited in his capital account or any explanation with regard to the sundry creditors of Rs. 11,74,500/- added by the CIT (A) - against assessee. Charging interest u/s 234B - Held that:- As the additions came to be made because the assessee failed to explain the source of credit of Rs. 30,40,000/- in his capital account and also could not give any explanation with regard to the sundry creditors of Rs. 11,74,500/-, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s whose entries were not found in the books of account but formed part of the Balance Sheet. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained creditors and disallowed the same. He also observed that this amount would represent part of the undisclosed income of Rs. 20,39,460/- generated by the assessee and therefore, did not make any addition on this ground separately. He also observed that an amount of Rs. 30,40,000/- was introduced by the assessee as capital by way of cash. These credits have been held as unexplained credits as the assessee was not able to offer any satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash credits. In this way, the Assessing Officer has computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 46,68,425/- after .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e gross receipts and separate addition made on account of unexplained credits should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the only contention of the assessee is that as his income from the contract business was estimated by the Assessing Officer @ 12.5% then addition on account of cash credit was not justified. For this submission, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs A.Vajjiram and Bros. [2010] 326 ITR 551(Mad). We find that in the aforesaid case, the questions which were before the Hon'bl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oks of account are not maintained, income has to be estimated only at 8 per cent. and hence the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) estimating the income at 8 per cent. cannot be regarded as one which is illegal. We are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is correct. The estimation has been made judiciously which requires no interference. 9. Thus, we find that nowhere in the aforesaid decision it was held that when business income was estimated by the Revenue then the Revenue is precluded from making addition on account of unexplained cash credit. Thus, we do not find any force in the submission of the assessee. We find that the assessee has not offered any explanation with regard to the source of Rs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , with effect from April 1, 2001, and received assent on May 11, 2001, the assessee could not have envisaged that it would become liable for payment of tax even against voluntary retirement payments, which were otherwise allowable. Further the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 90,00,000 on August 6, 2001, as self-assessment tax, i. e., much before the filing of the return on October 30, 2001, which also proved the bona fides of the assessee. On the above two grounds the Tribunal accepted the case that the assessee was not subject to advance tax. The findings of the Tribunal were based on valid materials and evidence and did not warrant interference. 13. Thus, a reading of the above shows that in that case the amendment to section 35DDA was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates