TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l out of his undisclosed income and the same has not been reflected in the books of account - As per the books of account of the assessee, there is no violation of section 40A(3) of the Act, as payment were by different vehicles to the filling station - All the payments are fully verifiable and all the expenses are held as genuine – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 – Held that:- CIT(A) rightly recorded that there is difference on the dates of withdrawal from the bank account of the appellant and in the cash book of the appellant - The AO treated the entry of cash u/s 68 of the Act as the appellant could not give evidence for the source of such deposits - there is sufficient cash balance before all the dates on which the appellant shown cash deposits - the accountant of the appellant as inadvertently has shown the cash deposits before the date of withdrawal from the bank cannot be ruled out - there is also no evidence that the cash withdrawn from the bank has been expended for some other purposes – the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue. Addition u/s 68 - Cash receipts on sale of trucks – Held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned deletions by raising the following grounds :- 1. Deleting the disallowance of ₹ 20,39,121/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia)of the I.T. Act. 2. Deleting the addition of ₹ 14,36,740/- made by the AO on account of cash payments to M/s. Shekhawati Filling Station. 3. Deleting the addition of ₹ 3,00,400/-, ₹ 5,00,000/- ₹ 4,00,000/- totaling to ₹ 12,00,400/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 4. Deleting the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act on account of cash receipts on sale of trucks. 2.2 We have heard rival submissions and have carefully perused the entire record. Both parties have reiterated their earlier arguments. 2.3 The first ground relates to deletion of addition of ₹ 20,39,121/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40-(a)(ia). The facts apropos this ground are that from the perusal of the ledger account of transportation expenses, it was found that there were entries exceeding ₹ 20,000/- in cash as well as in the form of journal entries. The assessee produced bills of certain expenses along with books of accounts on 28.11.2007. The assessee did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchased diesel and oil from Shekhawat Filling Station during the year. All payments are recorded in the books of the assessee. The A.O. has found that these payments are in cash and are not recorded in the books. The A.O. has directly called for the books of Shekhawati Filling Station and has made this addition. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition by observing as under:- I have considered the submissions of the learned A/R along with the finding of the A.O. given in the assessment order. From the order, it appears that the A.O. has made the addition purely on the basis of ledger account of the appellant as appearing in the books of account of M/s. Shekhawati Filling station account of purchase of diesel / petrol. Admittedly, there is no such entries in the books of account of the appellant. It is also not a case of the A.O. that he has obtained copy of some of the bills of purchase of diesel/petrol by the appellant and he has made payments to such bill out of his undisclosed income and the same has not been reflected in the books of account. Further, it is also appears from the order that he has made the addition under section 69A of the Act. Provisions of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee it was an inadvertent mistake. But, the A.O. did not accept this explanation and has added ₹ 3,00,400/- u/s 68 of the Act. Further it was seen from this Bank account that the assessee had deposited ₹ 5,00,000/- on 18.06.2014, whereas as per the cash book it was deposited on 22.06.2004. On this difference the A.O. has added ₹ 5 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act. Further the assessee withdrew a sum of ₹ 4 lakhs on 3.5.2004. But this is shown in this cash book on 1.5.2004. On this reason the A.O. has added ₹ 4 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act. 7. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee was successful in getting this entire addition deleted because the reason for addition is simply the non tally of dates. The ld. CIT(A) has given the following reasons for this deletion :- I have considered the arguments of the learned A/R alongwith the findings of the A.O. made in the order under appeal. There is no dispute that there is difference on the dates of withdrawal from the bank account of the appellant and in the cash book of the appellant . The A.O. treated the entry of cash under section 68 of the Act as the appellant could not give evidence for the source of such deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
