9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of advance given by Smt. Gurdarshan Kaur W/p Sh. Paramjit Singh, Diamond Avenue, Amritsar u/s 68 of the Act made by ACIT, Circle 5, Amritsar. 4. That worthy CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- out of ₹ 5,26,000/- was received by the assessee in earlier years and not in A.Y.2005-06. 5. That worthy CIT(A), Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 30,000/- on account of advance given by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh which was surrendered by assessee in year 2007 during survey proceedings made by ACIT, Circle V, Amritsar. 6. That worthy CIT(A), Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 7,00,000/- on account of advance given by Sh. Jasbir Singh, Chowk Moni, Amritsar, which as surrendered by the assessee in year, 2007, during survey proceedings by ACIT, Circle 5, Amritsar. 7. That worthy CIT(A), Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming an addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- on account of advance given by Smt. Ritu which was surrendered by the assessee in year 2007, during survey proceedings made by ACIT Circle 5, Amritsar. 8. That worthy CIT(A), Amritsar has grossly erred in confirming an addition of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of undisclosed sources of income. Therefore, addition of ₹ 3,26,000/- is made on this account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act." 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer vide para 7 of his order. 2.2. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Padam Bahl, CA argued that the assessee had produced the person who had confirmed the fact of giving advance to the assessee. The cash creditor had explained the sources of advance given to the assessee as his savings of 20 years and contribution of his sons. The partly acceptance of advance of ₹ 2,00,000/- is legally untenable since the statement of Sh. Gurcharan Singh has to be accepted in toto or to be rejected in toto. 2.3. The Ld. DR, Mr. Amrik Chand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the cash creditor had been examined by the AO who had stated to have given the advance to the assessee. As regards the sources of the money available for giving advance to the assessee, the cash creditor was required to submit the details and the sources which were to be fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee shown as investment from undisclosed sources of income. The addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- is made to the taxable income on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act." 5. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Padam Bahl, CA, argued that the said amount of ₹ 4 lacs was forfeited during the year ending 31st March, 2009 for which copy of Income Tax return was placed on record before the ld. CIT(A). It was argued before the ld. CIT(A) that the amount may be deleted to avoid double taxation or direct the AO to exclude the surrendered amount from the assessable income from the assessment year 2009-10. Before us, it as argued that it is double taxation and the addition may be deleted in the impugned year only to avoid double taxation. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. As is evident from the order of the AO at page 2, the cash creditor had been issued summon u/s 131. In response to the same, a letter dated03.08.2007 was sent by the cash creditor to the AO that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T.Act." 10.1 The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 10.2. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Padam Bahl, CA as per copy of account of cash creditor ₹ 1 lac is the amount brought forward from the earlier year and therefore, cannot be treated as income under section 68 for the assessment year under consideration. In any case, the amount had been forfeited and credited during the assessment year 2009- 2010 and offered as income for which Income tax particulars were placed before the ld. CIT(A). It was argued before the ld. CIT(A) that there cannot be double taxation of the same income i.e. one in the impugned year and other during the assessment year 2009-2010 and therefore, argued before the ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition so made. 10.3. The Ld. counsel for the assessee argued before us that the said amount may be deleted, as submitted before the ld. CIT(A) to avoid double taxation. 10.4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. In the present case, the A.O. had issued s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ightly confirmed the action of the A.O. to treat the same as unexplained. 12. As regards the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and before us that there cannot be double taxation since ₹ 5,26,660/- has been credited as income during the assessment year 2009- 10. This argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee cannot be accepted in view of our findings hereinabove since the assessee had failed to submit any explanation of the amount found credited during the impugned year and therefore crediting the said amount in the assessment year 2009-2010 is nothing but to avoid taxes, interest and penal provisions which the assessee sought to be evade during the impugned year. The AO in the assessment year 2009-10 may peruse that there is no double taxation, once the income having been taxed on the same amount in the impugned year. In the facts and circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), who has rightly confirmed the action of the A.O. Thus, grounds No.3 & 4 of the assessee are dismissed. 13. As regards ground Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the assessee are concerned, the AO made an addition of ₹ 30,000/-, ₹ 7,00,000/-, &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mr. Padam Bahl, CA made the similar arguments as in the preceding grounds that the assessee has credited the amount of the said cash creditors in the assessment year 2007-08 or 2008-09 i.e. ₹ 30,000/- in respect of Sh. Jatinderpal Singh during the assessment year 2008-09, ₹ 7 lacs relating to Sh. Jasbir Singh during the assessment year 2007-08, ₹ 3 lacs in respect of Smt. Ritu during the assessment year 2008-09 and ₹ 2 lacs relating to Sh. Parshotam Lal during the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, there cannot be a double taxation of the same amount, one in the impugned year and the other in the said assessment years as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the income should be treated as explained during the impugned year to avoid double taxation. He further argued in case of Sh. Jasbir Singh that the assessee surrendered ₹ 50,00,000/- which has been credited as forfeited with respect to various amounts which include ₹ 7,00,000/- during the survey under section 133 of the Act. He pointed out the advance of ₹ 50 lacs credited in the profit & loss account as forfeited at PB-28 in the profit & loss account for the year ending 31st March, 2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
