TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-2016 - Sh. A. D. Jain, Hon'ble Judicial Member And Sh. T. S. Kapoor, Hon'ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. P.N. Arora (Adv.) For the Respondent : Sh. Bhawani Shankar (DR) ORDER Per T. S. Kapoor (AM) This is a bunch of seven appeals out of which two appeals ITA No.440 442 (Asr)/2015 are filed by Revenue whereas rest of the appeals has been filed by assessee. 2. The appeals in ITA Nos.440 442(Asr)/2015 has been filed by Revenue against the separate orders of CIT(A) both dated 20.05.2015 and Revenue is aggrieved with the relief given by learned CIT(A). 3. The appeals in ITA Nos.445 to 449 has been filed by assessee against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) all dated 20.05.2015 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that he was not pressing. In view of the above, it was submitted that appeal in ITA 448(Asr)/2015 may be dismissed as not pressed. 7. The learned DR did not raise any objection in admitting the additional ground of appeal and moreover we find that the ground raised by assessee is a legal ground and he is entitled to raise at this stage. Therefore, we admitted the additional ground and learned AR was directed to proceed on the arguments on the additional ground. 8. The learned AR submitted that it is an undisputed fact that assessee was not maintaining the books of accounts as no books of accounts were produced before Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A at page 9 of his order has noted down vide written submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Sh. Yadwinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bathinda in ITA No.508(Asr)/2014. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of authorities below in respect of assessee's appeals and relied upon the order of Assessing officer in respect of Revenue's appeals. 10. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that it is an undisputed fact that assessee was not maintaining the books of accounts and had declared its income u/s 44AF of the Act. This fact has been noted by learned CIT(A) in his orders at various pages as brought to our notice by the learned AR. Further we find that Assessing Officer has made the addition u/s 68 of the Act and in this respect the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts it is crystal clear that the assessee could not establish the source of cash deposits by producing corroborative evidences of sales purchase, So, I hereby make an addition of ₹ 14,63,000/- i.e. cash deposits of ₹ 14,98,000/- less profit shown at ₹ 34,912/- in the return of income on account of cash depsoits made in his saving bank account No4410 maintained with the Union Bank of India, Dalhousie Road, Pathankor during the relevant financial year under section 68 of the Income-tax Act 1961, by treating the aforesaid cash deposits as unexplained cash deposit. I am thus satisfied that the assessee has concealed his true particulars of his income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced reliance on 'CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile vs. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT', 113 TTJ 178(Del.) and 'Sheraton Apparels vs. ACIT', 256 I.T.R. 20(Bom.). It is correct that since no books of account are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to support action u/s 68 of the Act, no such addition is tenable. We further find that in the case of Sh. Yadwinder Singh vs. ITO, Ward- 2,(1), Bathinda in ITA 508/Asr/2015 passed by Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, vide its order dated 24.02.2016 is also similar. The similar facts and circumstances of the case vide para no.6 to 10 has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it remains undisputed that the. assessee has not maintained any books during the year. Thus, the provisions of section 68 of the Act are not at all attracted and they have been wrongly applied by the authorities below. This position has been duly recognized in 'Sh. Om Parkash Sharma, Faridabad' (supra). No contrary decision has been cited before this Bench. 10. In view of the above, the grievance of the assessee by way of the additional grounds taken is justified and is accepted as such. Due to such acceptance, since the provisions of section 68 of the Act are themselves held to be not applicable and mis- applied, nothing further remains to be adjudicated. 11. Accordingly, the order under appeal is reversed. The addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
