TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee regarding having opening cash in hand of ₹ 14,16,946/- is not supported by any credible evidence – assessee relied upon several cases which are held as distinguishable for various reasons - the assessee could not establish the availability of opening cash in hand as has been claimed by the assessee in the cash book and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 227/LKW/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav And Shri A. K. Garodia,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amit Nigam, D. R. ORDER Per A. K. Garodia, A.M. This is an assessee s appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A), Bareilly dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned A.R. of the assessee that the return was filed on 11/09/2002 and he submitted a copy of the acknowledgement of return of income which is dated 11/09/2002. 4. As against this, Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by Assessing Officer in the assessment order that an enquiry was conducted by the Income Tax Officer, Bareilly and the report was received in the office of the present Assessing Officer i.e. ACIT-II, Bareilly through Addl. Director of Investigation (Inv.), Lucknow and thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after issuing notice u/s 148 on 27/03/2006. In the reasons recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incurred house hold expenses and therefore, any saving with the assessee could have made can be very small amount. As per the cash book for the financial year ending on 31/03/1997, available on page 10 to 12 of the paper book, it is seen that opening cash balance of ₹ 2.18 lac was shown by the assessee as on 01/04/96. The closing cash in hand shown by the assessee as on 31/03/1997 is ₹ 7,95,736/-. The increase in cash in hand is mainly on the account that the assessee received an amount of ₹ 6 lacs as advance against the property but no details of such advance received or evidence for such receipt has been furnished by the assessee. Similarly, in the cash book, in assessment year 97-98, the assessee is showing opening cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee in these years, the assessee cannot have such cash in hand and the assessee s claim regarding receipt of advance to the extent of ₹ 6 lac in assessment year 1996-97 and ₹ 8 lacs in assessment year 1997-98 is not supported by any credible evidence. Moreover, no valid return was filed by the assessee for any of these years. 6. As per the above discussion, we have seen that the claim of the assessee regarding having opening cash in hand of ₹ 14,16,946/- is not supported by any credible evidence. 7. Now we consider the applicability of various judgments cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee. The judgments cited by him are as under: 1. Kailash Chand Trivedi vs. Dy CIT, I.T.A. No.133/Lkw/2013, assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in A. Y. 2003-04 when the assessee is showing the cash for the first time but is not able to explain. It is not the fact of that case that no valid return was filed by the assessee in earlier years whereas in the present case, the assessee did not file any return of income in any earlier year and therefore, although the assessee is showing cash in hand but this is brought on the record in the present year for the first time because no valid return was filed for any preceding year. Therefore, this Tribunal decision is not rendering any help to the assessee in the present case. 7.2 The next judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is the Tribunal decision in the case of Satish Chandra Pandey (supra). In this case, it is noted in Para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer has failed to take cognizance of the return for assessment year 1990-91 while deciding the issue of 91-92 as the return was before him, the opening balance of cash cannot be treated as unexplained in the assessment year 91-92. Since in the present case, no valid return was filed for any preceding year, this decision of the Tribunal is not rendering any help to the assessee. 7.4 The next judgment cited by Learned A.R. of the assessee is the Tribunal decision in the case of Kiran Devi (supra). In that case, it is noted by the Tribunal that the assessee s claim was that there was opening cash balance of ₹ 6,70,095/- as on 01/04/97 and in support of this, the assessee has furnished copy of bank statement for assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
