Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri. Syed Ahmed Emtiyaz Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward – 7 (3) , Bangalore

Undisclosed cash credit - Held that:- What we find is that a credit of ₹ 3 lakhs appears both in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 as well as as on 31.03.2006 in the name of Shri. Govinda Reddy. These statement of affairs were filed along with the returns of income for A. Ys.2005-06 and 2006-07. Amount remaining the same, if at all it had to be added as unproved credit, it ought to have been done in the year in which assessee had received the credit. As assessee had given full part .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lease amount’ that ought have been there in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 was ₹ 6 lakhs and not ₹ 7,50,000/-. AO had clearly given a finding that assessee was unable to show entries in its books of account for receipt of such amounts. Closing cash and bank balance as on 31.03.2005 came only to ₹ 44,499/- and hence evidently did not include the post dated cheque of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Thus the version of the assessee that whole of the amount represented receipt from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- which assessee received during the relevant previous year being not reflected in its books of account could not be considered as the source for explaining ₹ 7,50,000/- shown as dues in its statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that assessee should be given a relief of ₹ 6 lakhs for the sums received by him during the preceding previous year. Accordingly we restrict the addition to a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/-. Addition to the extent of  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erest u/s.234B and 234C of the Incometax Act, 1961 ( the Act in short) and this also does not need any specific adjudication. 02. Vide its ground number 2, assessee is aggrieved that a credit of ₹ 3,00,000/- in the name of Shri. Govinda Reddy was disallowed by the AO and such disallowance was confirmed by the CIT (A). 03. Facts apropos are that assessee, a seller of second hand vehicles, had filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 3,51,250/-. During the course of assessment proc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e return, and the correct name was Govindappa. As per the assessee, he had purchased site bearing No.29 & 30 at Madeena Nagar, from Shri. Govindappa and a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs was due on the said purchase to Shri. Govindappa. Assessee also mentioned that the outstanding amount stood to be paid during the financial year 2006-07. Address of Shri. Govindappa was also furnished by the assessee. AO issued a summons u/s.131 of the Act, but it seems there was no response. AO was of the opinion th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent of affairs of the assessee as on 31.03.2005, placed at paper book pages 8 to 10, Ld. AR submitted that the sum of ₹ 3 lakhs was shown as payable to Shri. Govinda Reddy in the said statement. As per the Ld. AR, it was the very same amount that appeared in the liability side of the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006 filed along with the return for the impugned assessment year. Thus according to him, the balance was only a carry forward of earlier balance and addition ought not have be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

v.Shailesh D. Shah [ ITA.7012/Mum/2010, dt.11.12.2013]. 07. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. What we find is that a credit of ₹ 3 lakhs appears both in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 as well as as on 31.03.2006 in the name of Shri. Govinda Reddy. These statement of affairs were filed along with the returns of income for A. Ys.2005-06 and 2006-07. Amount remaining the same, if at all it had to be added as unproved credit, it ought to have been done in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xplanation as to how the credit has come into the books of the assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the addition for the amount of ₹ 3 lakhs made during the impugned assessment year was uncalled for. Such addition stands deleted. Ground 2 of the assessee stands allowed. 08. Vide its grounds 3 to 5 grievance raised by the assessee is that a sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- shown as a liability in its statement of affairs was disallowed by the AO, and such disallowance was con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3 for ₹ 1,50,000/-, both of which were dated 26.03.2005. As per the assessee, balance sum of ₹ 50,000/- was received in cash on the very same day. AO on examination of books of account produced by the assessee was of the opinion that sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- was not reflected therein. As per the assessee the cheques issued by the party were bearer cheques and cash was directly drawn from the bank. AO was of the opinion that the sum of ₹ 7,50,000/- shown as due on account of ho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the opinion that claim of the assessee for receipt of ₹ 7,50,000/- as house lease amount could not be believed. 10. Now before us, Ld. AR strongly assailing the order of lower authorities submitted that ₹ 7,50,000/- was also a carried forward balance from the preceding year. Placing reliance on a lease agreement dt.26.03.2005 entered with Shri. Mohammed Sarshad, Ld. AR submitted that payment of ₹ 5,50,000/- and ₹ 1,50,000/- by cheques and ₹ 50,000/- by cash was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

,50,000/- shown in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006 for the reason that one of the cheques given by Shri. Mohammed Sarshad was due for payment only in F. Y. 2005-06. 12. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. In support of the house lease amount of ₹ 7,50,000/- shown by the assessee in its statement of affairs as on 31.03.2006 as a liability, assessee is relying on an agreement of lease dt.26.03.2005. Para 3 of the lease agreement is reproduced .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) by way of CASH. Dated 26.03.2005. And will be refunded to the LESSEE upon efflex of the duration of lease and handing over vacant possession of the House. The LESSOR shall have the right to adjust this deposit against, electricity water and maintenance charges if any. It is clear that one of the cheques for ₹ 1,50,000/- was dated.25.04.2005. If that be so, house lease amount that ought have been there in the statement of affairs as on 31.03.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version