TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing closing stock of ₹ 9,07,250/- and cash in hand of ₹ 2,30,127/-. Thus, the explanation of the assessee regarding this deposit of cash was correct. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating this explanation as contrary to the explanation given before her. The explanation given before AO as stated in the letter dated 23.11.2017 and the explanation given to the CIT(A) in its submissions is the same. The assessee having deposited the amount out of the sale proceeds of the closing stock held by him as on 31.03.2009 and out of the cash balance available with him as on 31.03.2009, there is no reason for sustaining this addition. - I.T.A. No. 1076/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - SHRI H. S. SIDHU, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the there is no basis in the reasons recorded by the AO for drawing assumption that the cash deposited in the bank account are the undisclosed income of the assessee. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- made by A.O. on account of cash deposits in the bank account. 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the assessee bringing explanation and evidences on record to prove the source of cash deposits. (ii) That the addition h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod. The AO found that all the cash from the supposed cash sales were deostied in one day in the bank and the next day paid out through cheques. The Assessee did not show any evidence of cash sales. Under these circumstances, not being satisfied with the submission of the assessee the AO treated the amount of cash deposit of ₹ 29 lacs as gathered from undisclosed sources and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act by completing the assessment at ₹ 30,53,760/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Vide order dated 01.12.2017. Against the assessment order dated 01.12.2017, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 17.12.2018 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as specified under the provisions of section 68, by furnishing all the documentary evidences as and when called upon by the AO. On the contrary AO has himself not brought on record any evidence which may prove that the documents or the explanations furnished by the assessee are not reliable, despite of this fact AO is still contending that assessee has completely failed to discharge onus casted upon him by the law. Undoubtedly, the addition has been made merely on the basis of suspicion and doubt without bringing any evidence on record by the AO which is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has submitted to the AO that ₹ 8,77,100/- is the sale proceeds of the stock balance he was having as on 31.03.2009 and balance ₹ 1,22,900/- was deposited out of the cash balance available with him. In this regard, the assessee has also filed the balance sheet with the AO which he has filed along with the return of income for preceding assessment year. I further note that as per the balance sheet as on 31.03.2009 the assessee was having closing stock of ₹ 9,07,250/- and cash in hand of ₹ 2,30,127/-. Thus, the explanation of the assessee regarding this deposit of cash was correct. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating this explanation as contrary to the explanation given before her. The explanation given b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
