9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer, after considering the statement on oath recorded under section 132(4) of Mr. Sunil Mantri, came to the conclusion that the cash sum of ₹ 35,11,878 stands unexplained. The reconciliation of the unexplained cash was worked out as under by the Assessing Officer:- Total Cash Found ₹ 49,09,800 Less: Actual cash balance as per book ₹ 10,97,922 Hence, total excess cash ₹ 35,11,878 The working of actual cash balance as per book was as under:- Cash balance available for the group (ref. q.no.7) ₹ 30,62,672 Less: (1) amount debited in cash book but not withdrawn (ref. q.no.20 21, 24, 25 & 27) ₹ 16,00,000 (2) Amount spent but not reduced in cash book ₹ 3,64,750 Actual cash balance as per book Rs 10,97,922 He further observed that the assessee could not explain or give any cogent reason for explaining this excess cash found. Accordingly, he added excess cash of ₹ 32,11,787 under section 69A. 3. Before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee submitted that it has received cash of ₹ 10 lakhs from its Solapur Branch which was withdrawn from its bank account and the director of the assessee compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh in some other activity which are not brought to tax. Accordingly, I do not agree that the cash receipt of ₹ 79,08,150 taxed in earlier year would have been found during search action carried on 8.7.2008. However, the passage of time between withdrawal of ₹ 10,00,000 from Solapur branch of the bank and the date of search justifies to allow the set-ff. Thus, addition of unexplained cash is sustained at ₹ 25,11,878 (Rs 46,09,800 - 10,97,922 - ₹ 10,00,000) and sustain the balance addition of ₹ 25,11,878." 5. Before us, the learned Counsel submitted that in the immediately preceding year, a sum of ₹ 79,08,150, was added by the Assessing Officer in the form of cash receipts which was received from various customers from Pune project under section 68 of the Act. Without there being any evidence or material on record found during the course of search or post-search investigation that assessee has incurred any expenditure or has made any investment out of the said cash amount, the benefit of availability of cash should have been given. The excess cash of ₹ 35,11,878 would definitely get explained from the earlier cash of ₹ 79,08,150. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier addition of cash receipts cannot be accepted. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) and also the relevant material placed on record. At the time of search on 8th July 2008, physical cash of ₹ 46,09,800, was found. Out of the said amount, the Assessing Officer has held that as per the actual cash balance, the amount of ₹ 10,97,922, was actually available in the books. This reconciliation of cash found and cash recorded in the books of account has been worked out by the Assessing Officer which has already been incorporated in Para-2 above, whereas the assessee has given its own reconciliation before the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) which has been incorporated in Para-5 of the impugned appellate order. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in addition to this, a plea was taken that in the immediately preceding assessment year, a huge addition of more than ₹ 70,00,000 has already been sustained on account of cash receipts from the Pune project which has addition has become final in the assessment year 2008-09. Before us, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinate with various persons relating to project and were not accounted for in the books of account. This amount was offered as undisclosed income in the form of unaccounted expenditure in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 15.99 lakhs. 11. Before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has raised specific ground being ground no.3 and 3.1, inter-alia, contending that this amount has already been brought to tax as unexplained expenditure in the earlier assessment year 2008-09. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), in Paras-6 and 6.1, has held that the assessee has not made any submission in this regard and has dismissed the grounds as "not pressed". 12. Before us, the learned Counsel submitted that even otherwise also, the said addition will also get covered by the unaccounted cash added under section 68 in assessment year 2008-09 and referred to the reconciliation of cash which has been incorporated above in Para-5 of the order. 13. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that once this issue has not been argued before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the same cannot be agitated during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
