2013 (3) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee ?" [B] "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in not appreciating properly a plethora of evidences proving unreliability of the accounts of the assessee and thereby reversing the concurrent findings of the A.O and the CIT [A] in deleting the addition of Rs. 26.80 Lacs ?" [C] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs, made by the A.O as undisclosed income of the assessee, holding that the assessee has amply fulfilled the basic three criteria of a genuine credit ie., the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor; and thereby reversing the concurrent finding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the seized cash, this addition of Rs. 26.8 lakhs was confirmed by the CIT [A]. This was when challenged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not agree with both the adjudicating authorities below and held against the revenue and in favour of the assessee . While holding thus - "14. We have heard the rival contentions. We find that vide paper book annexure page no. 6,7 and 8, the assessee reconciled the cash position as on the date of seizure. In this reconciliation, the assessee submitted the inflow as well as the outflow. The inflow reflects cash received from various parties as also cash withdrawn from bank. The outflow reflects expenses incurred by the assessee. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT [A] has pointed out defect in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ] while concluding his finding, had expressed apprehension that the cash received from Cham may have spent towards business expenditure and therefore, the cash purportedly received from Cham does not represent the seized cash. This finding itself is mere surmise not supported by any clinching evidence. Therefore, we do not agree with finding of the ld. CIT [A] and hold that the cash of Rs. 26.80 lacs stands reconciled. This ground is therefore, allowed." On having heard learned counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt for the Revenue and on giving due consideration, we are of the opinion that the entire issue is in the realm of facts. The Tribunal having found that the assessee respondent was illiterate and nomadic, and considering the nature of the busine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X