9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The Ld. CIT(A)'s has erred in appreciating the fact that the credit card statements show only personal expenses of the assessee and purchase of jewellery, clothes, vehicle, mobiles, furniture, flight tickets etc., and no entries other than these. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)'s has erred in appreciating that the assessee failed to produce any evidence with regard to sale of his wife's jewellery, motor vehicle for the purpose of cash balance and opening cash balance before the AO either during assessment proceedings or during submission of remand report. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving the peak credit benefit to the assessee on the cash withdrawals from the bank accounts. In absence of evidence the purpose of withdrawal and immediate re-depositing claim. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cash withdrawals from the bank accounts were in fact utilized for the purpose of personal expenses. &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent-assessee failed to explain the sources for credit card bill payments and he further observed that the cash flow statement is not corroborated by the evidences like evidence for the sale of assessee's wife jewellery for Rs. 4,86,350/- and opening cash balance of Rs. 2,17,000/- and for sale of two wheeler for Rs. 84,500/- and the cash received from credit cards swiping of Rs. 32,93,952/-. Further, the Ld.AO observed that the credit cards were swiped to meet the personal expenses such as Caterers, Mobiles, Air ticket purchase, Harsha Toyota, Clothes purchases, Jewellery purchases, Latitudes Pro. Furniture purchases, Radio Guys & Gals, Shoes purchase, Fahion paradise, Cloub Mini Travels & Foreign Petrol purchases, Fenandez Maternity, Dimai Student Visa etc., which are in nature of personal use. Further, AO observed that the assessee had not provided complete addresses of all those business entities to examine whether those people are given cash against credit cards swiping which is an unusual practice. 4. The CIT(A) after considering the remand report of the AO as well as the information furnished by the respondent-assessee, held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unless the facts were duly verified by the AO, the addition should not have been deleted. Objections raised by AO in his remand report were not met by the CIT(A). The cash flow statement filed by the respondent-assessee before CIT(A) does not indicate the availability of cash on day to day basis. In the absence of this, it cannot be held that the cash deposits made in the savings bank account of the respondent-assessee are explained. Similarly, it cannot be held that the sources for payment of credit cards are explained. 8. The CIT(A) in the impugned order had not dealt with the facts of the case, he simply referred to certain case laws governing the peak credit theory which is not the germane to the issue on hand before him. The impugned order gives no reason which would indicate as to why the additions are deleted. The order is bereft of reasons and does not discuss the facts of the case. Therefore, the order suffers from the vice of being an order without reasons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of CCT Vs. Shukla Brothers [2010 (4) SCC 785] held that, recording of reasons is an essential feature of providing justice and in fact is the soul of orders. Further, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigant's faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
