9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in balance sheet u/s. 68 of the Act." 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,98,040/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the activity of tailoring/embroidery. The assessee for the 1st time filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs. 2,49,110/-. The assessee in the statement furnished under section 131 of the Act has disclosed the cash on hand as on 31 March 2015 at Rs. 4,98,040/- which was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thus the same was added to the total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and rival contentions I find no merit in contentions of assessee that said cash In hand was from her past saving from business of tailoring/embroidery. The impugned addition is therefore confirmed, The ground of appeal is rejected." 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 18 and submitted that the cash balance shown as on 31 March 2015 cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the same cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. 8. On the other hand the learner DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB)of section 10. 10. The provisions of section 68 can be invoked with respect to the sum found credited in the books of accounts and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory. Thus it is very clear that the provisions of section 68 can be attracted in relation to the credit entries found in the books of accounts. In other words the closing cash balance shown at the end of the financial year cannot be subject matter of addition under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Thus the addition made under 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench is of 90 days upon the conclusion of the hearing. However, during the prevailing circumstances where the entire world is facing the unprecedented challenge of Covid 2019 outbreak, resulting the lockdown in the country, the orders though substantially prepared but could not be pronounced for the unavoidable reasons within the maximum period of 90 days. In such circumstances we find that the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of JSW Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 6103/MUM/2018 vide order dated 14-5-2020 extended the time for pronouncing the order within 90 days of time by observing as under: 9. Let us in this light revert to the prevailing situation in the country. On 24th March, 2020, Hon'ble Prime Minister ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus "should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lub Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon'ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed "while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly". The extraordinary steps taken suo motu by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court also indicate that this period of lockdown cannot be treated as an ordinary period during which the normal time limits are to remain in force. In our conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
