9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of alongwith the cross objection filed by the assessee, being CO No.144/Hyd/2012 by this common order. 2. Ground No.1 raised in the appeal of the Revenue is general in nature and requires no specific adjudication. 3. The common issue involved in ground Nos. 2 to 4 relates to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the addition of Rs. 26,10,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenditure. 4. The assessee in the present case is an individual, who is engaged in Beedi Leaves contract business. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 29.9.2009, declaring total income of Rs. 6,22,850. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween the period 10.04.2008 to 18.04.2008. The bank balance as on 31.03.2008 and 01.04.2008 in the books of the assessee was shown as Rs. 9,630/-, i.e. the available balance and the withdrawal of Rs. 26,10,000/- was not taken to be part of the business transactions of the assessee at all. It is relevant to appreciate that the assessee is an individual and has an identity distinct from that of his proprietorship. It is possible for the assessee to withdraw funds from his business for his personal purposes in which situation, the funds would cease to be reflected in the books of the business and consequently the balance sheet. The fact that the assessee has not disclosed the bank balance in the books merely means that the amount has been tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to how the amount withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account regularly maintained can be treated as income of the assessee and that too as unexplained expenditure under S.69C of the Act. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss the ground Nos.2 to 4 of the Revenue's appeal. 7. The issue raised in ground No.5 of the Revenue's appeal relates to the deletion by the learned CIT(A) of the addition of Rs. 9,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has received a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Annexure). (iv) Further, the assessee has enclosed copy of bank account statement of Sri S.Saraiah maintained at Vijaya Bank for the period 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2009 as per which it is seen that Sri S.Saraiah has taken a D.D for an amount Rs. 8,50,000/-only and not Rs. 9,50,000/-." For the reasons given above, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs. 9,50,000 as unexplained credit and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 9. The addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit was challenged by the assessee in an appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the learned CIT(A) deleted the said addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d form Shri Ajay Agarwal was claimed to be repaid by the assessee as per his instruction to Shri S.Sariah and this claim was duly supported by the confirmation letter issued by Shri Ajay Agarwal. The Assessing Officer however did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee on this issue mainly on the ground that there was no evidence to suggest that Shri S.Saiarah has subsequently paid the amount of Rs. 9,50,000 to Shri Ajay Agarwal. As rightly held by the learned CIT(A), this reason given by the Assessing Officer as well as other reasons given by him to reject the claim of the assessee were totally irrelevant, as the explanation of the assessee of having repaid the amount in question to Shri S.Sariah on behalf of Shri Ajay Agarwal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, was produced by the assessee. It was also found by the Assessing Officer from the cash book of the assessee that the payment of Rs. 4,80,550 against purchase of bardan was made in cash. He, therefore, invoked the provisions of S.40A(3) and made disallowance of Rs. 4,80,550. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under S.40A(3) observing that there was no evidence produced by the assessee to establish that the amount of Rs. 4,80,550 against purchase of bardan was paid by demand draft. 13. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Although the learned counsel for the assessee has reiterated before us the submissions made before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
