TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 69A of the I. T. Act. - Decided against the assessee. - ITA 3612/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 16-10-2017 - Mr. Bhavnesh Saini, Member And Prashant Maharishi, Member For The Appellant : C. S. Anand, Advocate For The Respondent : Subhash Verma, Sr. D. R. ORDER Bhavnesh Saini, Member (J) 1. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, dated 1st April, 2016, for the A. Y. 2011-2012. 2. We have heard Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. In all the revised grounds of appeal, assessee raised two issues i. e. , addition of ₹ 82 lakhs under section 68/69A of the I. T. Act and addition of ₹ 60, 000. /- 3. 1 As regards addition of ₹ 82 lakhs, the A. O. noted that assessee is a partner of M/s. Srimander Dass Sons. During the year, the assessee has income from house property, remuneration, share of profit and interest from the firm and income from other sources. The assessee has not carried any business activity during the year in his individual capacity. During the year, assessee has made cash deposits of ₹ 82, 14, 000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the same account after meeting the expenditure of construction is also not sustainable. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity during the entire assessment period, the assessee was not able to submit any documentary evidence to prove that out of cash withdrawn, some payment has been made to the contractors/suppliers and balance cash in hand has been deposited subsequently. The assessee admitted that cash was used for construction of house and valuation of construction was submitted for ₹ 1. 84 crores. The A. O. noted that it is not possible that entire expenditure in respect of construction of property was incurred in cash and no bills in respect of purchase of materials or services were available with the assessee and even no single payment having been made in cheque. The assessee was asked to file copy of the project report submitted to the Jammu Kashmir Bank for availing housing loan, details of expenditure incurred on construction and payment and progress report of construction on the basis of which bank disbursed subsequent instalments of loan. However, no details have been furnished. The assessee did not file details of progress report of construction phase-wis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hands of the assessee and relied upon the unreported decisions of ITAT, Delhi, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad Benches, copies of which are filed in the paper book. 5. The Ld. D. R. on the other hand relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly applied Section 69A of the I. T. Act. Since no bills of construction have been produced, no payment is made by cheque, no details of construction expenses have been prepared or filed, no details of the expenses shown in the cash have been filed, therefore, cash flow statement is doubtful. The assessee did not prove the nexus of the amount withdrawn from the bank account with the re-deposited amount in the S. B. account. The cash flow statement is not reliable and supported by any evidence. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of assessee. It is well settled law that Ld. CIT(A) being the First Appellate Authority has co-terminus powers to that of A. O. Merely because wrong section is mentioned in the assessment order, is no ground to delete the addition. There is a cash deposit in the joint bank account maintained by assessee and others, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 2010 assessee has withdrawn ₹ 46 lakhs in cash and on 24th May, 2010 assessee made re-deposited to ₹ 1 lakh only and used ₹ 5 lakhs for construction only. Similarly, on 11th June, 2010 assessee has withdrawn ₹ 10 lakhs from the bank but it was not used either for redeposit or for construction purpose up to 30th June, 2010 because on 30th June, 2010 assessee claimed deposit of ₹ 1 lakh only. Similarly, on 29th July, 2010 and 30th July, 2010, no amount have been withdrawn from the bank but assessee claimed redeposit of ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 2, 50, 000/- on both the days as well as claimed ₹ 5 lakhs spent for construction. Similarly, from 2nd August, 2010 to 5th August, 2010 assessee has withdrawn ₹ 30 lakhs from the bank but claimed construction expenses of ₹ 5 lakhs only on 5th August, 2010. Thereafter, from 7th August, 2010 to 18th August, 2010 there is no withdrawal from the bank but assessee made deposits of ₹ 34, 50, 000/- in cash in the bank account. This position is going on for the entire year. The assessee has not filed any explanation about the discrepancy in the cash flow statement. It is not explained when hug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
