TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : P.Y. Vaidya, Adv. Revenue by : B. Barthakur, Ld. DR O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL 1. All these Appeals as well as Cross objections have been filed against the respective orders of CIT(A) dt. 19.3.2014. In all the appeals, the Revenue has taken the following common ground of appeal : (1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee s cash flow statement which was prepared without any corroborative evidence to indicate that the earlier withdrawn money was re-deposited in the bank accounts. (2) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) erred in merely relying upon this cash flow statement which was nothing but entries recorded on the basis of cash withdrawn and deposited in the various bank accounts. (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) erred in not considering the factual facts arrived at by the AO in asst order while making additions under section 69A on account of unexplained money in the bank accounts. (4) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that during the course of survey the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO noted that the Assessee has made total deposit in bank amounting to ₹ 33,77,849/- which includes cheque of ₹ 15,84,000/- and interest of ₹ 96,650/- (Rs.30,872 + ₹ 65,778) but the Assessee has declared peak credit in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 at ₹ 14,29,529/- and the Assessee had deducted cash withdrawal out of total cash deposits while working out the peak credit. The AO, therefore, worked out the peak credit after giving credit to the Assessee wherever there was nexus between withdrawal and the re-deposit of cash and he worked out the peak credit at ₹ 18,51,670/- (including the deposit by way of cheque of ₹ 15,84,000/-). CIT(A) noted under para 6.2.1 of its order that the Assessee has worked out peak credit for cash deposit at Nil and cheque deposit at ₹ 15,84,000/- and the interest credited at ₹ 1,02,849/- and claimed relief of ₹ 16,91,000/-. While working out the peak deposit we noted that the Assessee has shown opening balance as on 1.4.2005 at ₹ 24,49,500/-, as is appearing at pg. 23, as cash in hand but when we inquired from the learned counsel whether the Assessee has filed any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been filed by the Revenue for A.Y 2005-06, in our opinion, no interference is required in the order of CIT(A) as this amount will be sufficient to off set the cash deposit of ₹ 16,90,000/- as mentioned by the AO. We accordingly sustain the order of CIT(A) allowing relief to the Assessee to the extent of ₹ 16,51,112/-. Thus, ground taken by the Revenue stands dismissed. The AO is free, if he so desires, to take the action under the Wealth Tax Act as the closing balance of cash in hand as per the cash flow statement as on 30.3.2006 comes to ₹ 27,94,699/-. ITA NO. 185/PNJ/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) : 3.2 We heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same along with the order of the tax authorities below. In this year also we noted that the AO noted that the Assessee has deposited sum of ₹ 2,81,000/- through cheque, sum of ₹ 12,80,250/- in cash (Rs.3,62,250 + ₹ 1,72,000 + ₹ 3,69,000 + ₹ 3,77,000). There was also credit in those undisclosed bank accounts in respect of interest amounting to ₹ 19,335/-, ₹ 6,700/- and ₹ 5,883/- totalling to ₹ 31,918/-. The Assessee has declared peak credit of ₹ 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of ₹ 27,94,699/- coming from A.Y 2006-07 the CIT(A) took the view that during the year the Assessee has made cash withdrawal at ₹ 40,30,000/- while deposits were only ₹ 15,26,000/-, thus, there was no negative cash balance during the A.Y 2007-08 and the closing balance as on 31.3.2007 was ₹ 52,98,699/- and on that basis the CIT(A) deleted the addition in respect of peak cash credit made by the AO. This order of the CIT(A), as mentioned by the ld. AR and not disputed by the ld. DR, was not challenged before this Tribunal by the Revenue. In view of CIT(A) s order dt. 19.3.2014 for A.Y 2007-08 we are of the view that the finding of CIT(A) has become final and stands accepted by the Revenue that the Assessee was having closing cash in hand as on 31.3.2007 at ₹ 52,98,699/- even though no Wealth Tax return has been filed by the Assessee. In view of this order of CIT(A) we are bound to accept the opening cash in hand at ₹ 52,98,699/-. If the Assessee is having this opening balance of cash in hand, we do agree with the CIT(A) that there will not be any peak cash credit and therefore, CIT(A) was correct in law in deleting the addition made on account o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20/- and interest of ₹ 1,29,479/- and allowed relief of ₹ 1,19,86,040/-. CIT(A), we noted, in his order has reproduced the cash flow statement from 1.4.2008 and while working out the opening cash in hand on 1.4.2009 at ₹ 48,39,974/- took cash in hand as on 1.4.2008 at ₹ 61,79,332/-. CIT(A), we also noted, while accepting the cash in hand has not examined whether the Assessee has filed any Wealth Tax return as the sum exceeding ₹ 50,000/- cash in hand is an asset chargeable under the Wealth Tax Act. The ld. DR even though relied on the order of the AO could not adduce any evidence or material before us in the cash flow statement which has been considered by the CIT(A) as well as in the Remand report for the impugned assessment year. We have already observed that only the peak cash credit which represents the negative balance of the cash can be added to the income of the Assessee. Since no such balance was brought to our knowledge and the opening balance as on 1.4.2008 stands accepted, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of CIT(A) and we confirm the same. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. The AO is free, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
