9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer on mere basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. ii. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by Ld. Assesing Officer without appreciating that stated addition and action on part of the Ld. AO has resulted in patent and glaring double taxation. iii. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the statement of searched person recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act, as regards utilization of surrendered cash/amount. iv. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s SAP Chennai. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.12.2010 the assessee was asked to explain as to why the amount of Rs. 78,00,000/- should not be treated as its unexplained cash and added to the income from undisclosed sources. The assessee company vide its letter dated 28.12.2010 replied that the cash amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- transferred to Chennai, Rs. 25,00,000/- transferred to Bhubaneshwar and Rs. 45,00,000/- seized by the I.T. Department was from the cash generated from the surrendered amount of Rs. 247.19 lakhs and hence the same cannot be treated as our income as it would taxing twice on same income. Out of the above amount AO allowed set off of Rs. 8,00,000/- being cash Amount received on that date from Mr. Sandeep Gupta. However A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was having a sufficient cash available with him and which should be considered as part of the disclosure already made by assessee. He further submitted that it amounts to double addition in the hands of the assessee once it is already disclosed and second time when application of such income is further added separately. He also drew our attention to a date wise cash flow statement and also the disclosure made by the assessee for which entries have been passed in the books of accounts. In the statement he also pointed out that an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs sent to Bhuveneshwar and Rs. 8 lakhs cash sent to Chennai and Rs. 45 lakh seized by the income tax department are already shown and out of which AO has given credit of Rs. 8 lakhs on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ources of the fund were available assessee has granted credit of Rs. 8 laths. She further relied on the para no 7 of other order of CIT (A) that assessee is engaged in accommodation entry business and in such business no cash on hand is available as it is always in circulation. Her further stress was on the argument that cash flow statement is submitted by assessee but same is not the cash book of the assessee so based on such cash flow statement the benefit is rightly not granted by the AO. 5. In rejoinder ld AR of the assessee once again relied on the decision cited showing that in those decisions intervening period was more than the period in the case of the assessee but Hon ITAT has considered the set off / telescoping. Therefore it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 1,50,85,236/- and out of which on 31.7.2008 an amount of Rs. 6,14,597/- was spent on Infoage, on 5.8.2008 Rs. 25,00,000/- utilized for sending for cash to Bhuvneshwar and on 22.8.2008 cash was seized by Income tax department of Rs. 45,00,000/-. As per that statement assessee still has the balance of Rs. 74,70,639/- as at 22.8.2008 which is taken in to the books of accounts. This cash flow statement is not controverted by the AO as well as CIT(A) when it was specifically submitted that same is made based on the entries made in the cash book immediately after the surrender of Rs. 2,47,85,236/-. It is surprising that AO wants to tax the surrender amount as well as its application which definitely amounts to double addition in the hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn to the decision of Honorable Punjab and Haryana High court in case of CIT V Shri Premchand (supra) , the credit for telescoping/ benefit of surrender is given even after 10 years in absence of any evidence that assessee had acquired any assets or had used it to meet some expenses. In another decision cited before us the intervening period of 21 months was noted and still allowed the benefit of telescoping or credit of surrender to the assessee in absence of any adverse evidence of user of that amount for acquiring some assets or user of the same for any purposes. In the case of the assessee also there is no such evidence available with the AO. Merely on the basis of time period in absence of any contrary material assets/ cash available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
