TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther find that it was a clerical error having no impact on the profitability of the assessee. As such, we find that there is no undisclosed investment on account of adjustment of liability with the amount of advances. Before us, Ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the advance argument of Ld. AR in this regard. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Addition on account of undisclosed income - Held that:- We find that AO had made the addition for ₹ 13,01,631/- on account of payment made to RDB & Co. (HUF) on the ground that this payment was not reflecting in the balance-sheet of assessee. However, we find that there was a opening loan liability for ₹ 11,26,631/- which was adjusted by ₹ 10 lakh by transferring the same to a new account with the name RDB & CO. (HUF) (housing loan). We find that assessee has shown this amount as housing loan in the current year and thereafter certain amount was also received through banking channel which was shown as housing loan. The old loan amount was repaid by assessee during the current year through banking channel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay and admit the appeal. Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Satyajit Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee per its appeal are as under:- 1. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions of ₹ 9,99,900/-, ₹ 89,600/- and ₹ 10,19,000/-, made u/s. 68 of the IT Act, holding that haitali Rajshree were one and the same person whereas in fact, the Balance Sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2006 has separate, independent entries in the names of Chaitali Rajshree . 2. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,50,000/- being undisclosed investment by failing appreciate that the advance for land to the same extent was not reflected in the asset side of the balance sheet. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 13,01,631/- being undisclosed income in view of the categorical finding given by the AO in the remand report that the said amount, paid to M/s RDB Co. was not reflected n the books of account of the assessee. 4. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas assessee filed an affidavit stating that the nickname of the assessee is Chaitali . The assessee shifted to Mumbai after her marriage but the accounts were maintained in Kolkata. The accountant for the easy reference of the cash availability has recorded the same in different names which created this confusion. Now the assessee has started recording the cash balance under the single head as evident from the balance sheet for the year ended 31st March 2007. The assessee, in support of her claim, has also submitted Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay dated 20/06/1994 wherein the correction in the name of the assessee was made from Chaitali to Rajshree . The assessee also submitted the cash flow statement reflecting all the entries of cash deposits. Accordingly, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- On careful consideration of the facts, I am of the opinion that by making such observations, it cannot be denied that the appellant was having opening cash balance as on 1.4.2006 at ₹ 17,10,500/-. If, the said cash was appearing in different heads in the balance-sheet and not under one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances, the AO is directed to delete the additions of ₹ 9,99,999/-, ₹ 89,600/- and ₹ 10,19,000/- made by him. The ground nos. 3, 5 and 7 are allowed. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Before us ld. DR submitted that identity of Chaitali is to be verified and therefore it should be restored before AO for further verification and he vehemently relied on the order of AO. On the other hand, Ld. AR before us filed a paper book which is running pages from 1 to 65 and submitted that the name Chaitali is a nick name of assessee. Therefore, no cash was received from the third party and the cash shown in the books of account was belonging to assessee only. Ld. AR further supported of the said claim the birth certificate of daughter of assessee where the correction in the name of assessee was carried out said birth certificate is placed on page 22 of the paper book. Ld. AR very much relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the opening balance of cash-in-hand for ₹ 16 lakhs as reflected in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Manuvir Agarwal was shifted from the liability side and adjusted with ₹ 17.75 lakh brought to advance in the assets side down to ₹ 14.25 lakh. Assessee further stated that this book entry has no adverse effect or impact in the accounts on the revenue but AO has rightly reiterated that ₹ 54.41 lakh was shown as advance from associates in the balance-sheet at stood on 31.03.2007. In the list of such advance from associates, the advance from Manuvir Agarwal for ₹ 22.50 lakh was a fresh deposit which never appeared in the balance sheet as stood on 3.103.2006. Further assessee contended that said sum of ₹ 3.50 lakh could easily be verified from cash book and bank book as were submitted before AO while framing assessment order where assessee categorically stated that said sum of ₹ 3.50 lakh was neither refunded nor added with the fresh deposit of the year received from Shri Manuvir Agarwal. Considering the submissions and perused the assessment order together with the remand report submitted by AO, Ld. CIT(A) opined that as per the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2006 assessee had advanced sum of ₹ 17.75 lakh to seven different persons against the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the paper book. He very much relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. From the foregoing discussion, we find that advance shown in the balancesheet as on 31.03.2007 was after adjusting the loan liability from Shri Manuvir Agarwal. We further find that it was a clerical error having no impact on the profitability of the assessee. As such, we find that there is no undisclosed investment on account of adjustment of liability with the amount of advances. Before us, Ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the advance argument of Ld. AR in this regard. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. This ground of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 14. Third issue raised by Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for the ₹ 13,01,631/- on account of undisclosed income. The assessee during the year has made the payments to M/s RDB Co. (HUF) through banking channel on different dates as detailed under:- (iii)(c) Payments by transfer of ₹ 2,75,000/- vide cheque number 104726 of UCO bank on 12. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit balance of ₹ 11,26,631/-. Further, the appellant had received a sum of ₹ 5 lakh on 14/2/07 and a sum of ₹ 4,50,000/- on 23/3/07 from R.D.B. Co. HUF. Thus, the total of credit side of the account comes to ₹ 20,76,631/-. Out of the opening credit balance of ₹ 11,26,631/-, sum of ₹ 10 lakh was transferred as housing loan from R.D.B. Co. HUF. The appellant had also given sum of ₹ 2,75,000/- on 10/6/06 and ₹ 8,01,631/- on 29/8/06 to R.D.B. Co. HUF. In this manner, the total of debit side also became ₹ 20,76,631/- and the loan account which was appearing in the balance-sheet as on 31/3/06 was squared off. The confirmation of this account was filed before the AO which, according to him, was filed by the appellant after detection of entries of payment by the appellant to the R.D.B. Co. HUF. As mentioned above, the old loan account was square off, but during the year, a new account by the name R.D.B Co. HUF (Housing Loan) was opened wherein the sum of ₹ 10 lakh was transferred from the old loan account and the appellant has further received sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- on 20th April, 06 and sum of ₹ 5 lakhi on 6/1/07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance-sheet of assessee. However, we find that there was a opening loan liability for ₹ 11,26,631/- which was adjusted by ₹ 10 lakh by transferring the same to a new account with the name RDB CO. (HUF) (housing loan). We find that assessee has shown this amount as housing loan in the current year and thereafter certain amount was also received through banking channel which was shown as housing loan. The old loan amount was repaid by assessee during the current year through banking channel. We further find all the repayment of loan and accepting the fresh loan has been made through banking channel. There was certain other movement of cash through banking channel on personal account of assessee also this was not shown in the loan statement of the party as it was adjusted with the capital account of assessee. The Ld. AR in support of its claim has placed the confirmation from RDB Co. (HUF) which are placed on pages 25 to 28 of the paper book. Before us Ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the confirmation filed by Ld. AR. In view of above facts and circumstances in the present case, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). This ground of Revenue is dismissed. 18. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22,427/- was received by the appellant from some other source. I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in holding that the sum of ₹ 16,22,427/- was the income of the appellant from undisclosed sources. Though, in the sales register, the name of Vishant Leasing and Vir Alloy is written, but it not clear whether these names related to share broker or not. But the fact remains that as per the contract note and the copy of ledger account of Bakliwal Financial Services, the appellant had sold shares through said broker and received the sale proceeds of ₹ 16,22,339/-. Under the circumstances, it is to be held that the sum of ₹ 16,22,427/- was received by the appellant as sale proceeds of the shares and it was not appellant s income from undisclosed sources as held by the AO. He is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 16,22,427/-. The ground no. 8 is allowed. Being aggrieved by this order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 21. Before us ld. DR submitted that the sale proceed was received from the broker for an amount of ₹ 1,00,112/- therefore the amount received from the broker for ₹ 16,22,427/- does not represent the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
