TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection by the assessee respectively are directed against order dated 20/01/2012 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi [in short the CIT-(A) ] for assessment year 2006-07. Since both appeal and cross objections being connected with the same assessee, were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order for convenience. 2. The cross objection raised by the assessee in ITA No. 172/Del/2013, is reproduced as under: The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in sustaining addition of ₹ 95,50,000/- (wrongly mentioned ₹ 95,95,000/- in the ground) on account of alleged unexplained cash credits recovery from existing accepted sundry debtors as on 31.03.2005. 3. The grounds raised in the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 2289/Del/2012 are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- and opined that this amount after ascertaining its taxability may be added in the income of Mrs. Janak Gupta. The appellant craves leave to ad, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The facts in respect of issue in dispute are that the Assessing Officer observed cash deposits in bank accounts, which the assessee explained as money received from debtors. The Assessing Officer observed that sundry debtors at the beginning of the year under consideration i.e. 31/03/2005 were of ₹ 1,84,94,041/-, which at the end of the year under consideration i.e. 31/03/2006, have been shown as reduced to ₹ 42,21,000/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has produced a table of the money shown to have been received from various sundry debtors, which is reproduced as under: Name of the Party Opening Balance as on 1.4.2005 Payments received during the year Mode of Payment received Closing balance as on 31.3.2006 A.G. Impex 756200 756200 Cash NIL Ashu Plastic 428900 4289C0 Cash NIL Bombay Pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debtors. The Assessing Officer deputed the Inspector for verification of those sundry debtors at the address furnished by the assessee but either the addresses were found fake/incomplete/incorrect or those persons could not be located at those addresses. 11. The Assessing Officer confronted above observations and asked the assessee to produce those sundry debtors for examination. Despite providing sufficient opportunity the assessee failed to produce those sundry debtors. 12. The Assessing Officer further observed that huge cash of ₹ 85,01,675/- was shown to have been received from various debtors from 01/04/2005 to 22/11/2005 and which was appearing as cash in hand and not deposited in the bank account. Thereafter, all the cash was deposited in the bank towards the outstanding loan taken by the assessee against the overdraft (OD) limit. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that it was unbelievable that a person having huge cash in hand available with it, would not deposit the same in the bank account, particularly in view of the interest liability on the outstanding bank loan. 13. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee failed to prove that said amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese debtors were accepted by the A.O. in earlier assessments has no relevance as the case of the Department is not based on non-genuineness of debtors but on cash deposited in the appellant s bank account which the appellant has explained as having emanated from the debtors. This version of appellant failed the test of verification as no confirmations were filed by the appellant, the appellant was not able to produce the debtors and the enquiry by the A.O. failed to trace the debtors. In these circumstances, the repetitive deposit of cash of amount below ₹ 20,000/- but totaling to ₹ 95,50,000/- remained unexplained credit in the accounts of the appellant. The case law quoted by the appellant is relating to share capital where entire details of share holders were available with the Department. The facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of the case of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is held that the appellant has been unable to explain the credit of cash of ₹ 95,50,000/- in its accounts and accordingly, the addition made by the A.O. is sustained. Grounds no. 1 and 2 are, therefore, dismissed. 15. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish evidence in support of the claim. Further, the Assessing Officer on enquiry from the bank of the assessee, observed the said amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the assessee from saving account of Mrs. Janak Gupta. The Assessing Officer made further enquiries from the bank and discovered that said amount was paid to Mrs. Janak Gupta by M/s. Shivam Promoter in pursuance of collaboration agreement in respect of property E-27, Gitanjali, New Delhi. The assessee submitted that it was an accounting error and had no effect on the revenue. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that the amount of ₹ 50 Lacs credited in the books of the assessee remained unexplained. 20. The Ld. CIT-(A) after considering the submission of the assessee held that no addition could have been made in the case of the assessee. The finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: 3.3 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and views of the A.O. as contained in the assessment order. The A.O., through enquiries made by him has reached the conclusion that the subject cheque of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
