TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t filed Wealth Tax return showing cash in hand amounting to Rs.20,20,000/- as on 31.3.1999 which was chargeable to Wealth Tax – Decided against the Assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 420 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : Suyash Agarwal, R. R. Agrawal For the Respondent : C. S. C. ,D. Awasthi ORDER 1. We have heard Sri Suyash Agrawal for the appellant-assessee. Sri Dhananjai Awasthi appears for the respondent-department. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 25.06.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra in Income Tax Appeal No. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness concern does not mean that the amount has been withdrawan by the assessee. The onus is on the assessee to show that the amount has been shown by the assessee as its drawings. The amount withdrawn from business concern on the various dates might have been used for the business purpose of the said concern. Had the assessee been having cash in hand to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/-, he would have filed the Wealth Tax return. The cash in hand in excess of Rs.50,000/- is an asset. NO such return was ever claimed by the assessee to have been filed. Even there is no evidence on record being brought out from either of the side that the assessee was a Wealth Tax assessee and the sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee utilised in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares in favour of the assessee. The assessee even did not point out how much income has been shown by the assessee in the F.Y. Ending 31.3.1999. Whether there were profit in the proprietary concern so as to generate a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- cash in hand in the hands of the assessee. The CIT (A), in our opinion, has incorrectly treated the current account of the proprietorship concern of the assessee to be his individual account. There is every possibility that the money would have been used by the assessee somewhere else. The onus is on the assessee to explain about the amount withdrawn and was kept by the assessee to the satisfaction of the A.O. The explanation given by the assessee must be plausible one. From the order of the CIT(A) we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich it was held in para 21 as follows:- "21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread.? 6. In the present case, the findings arrived at by the AO and affirmed by the ITAT, after setting side the finding of CIT (A) are based on the fact that no evidence about the distinctive share numbers or photocopy of share certificates was available, nor any evidence was led to establish t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
