TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopted throughout that the cash deposit had in fact, come from the company s cash-in-hand for meeting the day-to-day requirements at the site level. Both the AO as well as CIT(A) have not gone by the source explained to examine identity, genuineness and creditworthiness thereof in light of all the evidence available on record but they have ventured on application aspect of the cash deposits only. Impugned addition in light of all the supportive evidence coming from the assessee s side cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1807/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2020 - Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice-President and Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member By Appellant : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA By Respondent : Shri Supriy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion tendered before the Assessing Officer; reveal that his stand from the date one was that the impugned cash deposits came from his M/.s ANPL only. He further stated that he was that Managing Director of the company required to make all day-to-day expenses incurred at the company s site. All these failed to evoke the Assessing Officer s acceptance who was of the view that the company had sufficient cash-in-hand in his own books and therefore, it did not require the assessee to incur the expenses at its behest. And also that assessee s foregoing explanation was not verifiable. All this made him to treat the assessee s cash deposits as unexplained resulting in the impugned addition. 4. The CIT(A) has partly affirmed the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has categorically submitted that he has received remuneration in cash from Aatrayee Nriman Pvt Ltd of ₹ 6,00,000/- which is duly shown in respect to the books of appellant as well as Aatrayee Nirman Pvt Ltd. The Appellant has also provided during the appellate proceeding the order passed in respect of the company Aatrayee Nirman Pvt Ltd for the AY 2014-15 wherein the respective AO has not made any addition in the income of the said company for the cash given to the Appellant. 4. In my considered view of the situation, the Ld AO has accepted in the assessment order that the cash withdrawal made from the Appellant from ATM is of ₹ 12,47,635/- which is not disputed. On consideration of the appellant s submission I cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as could not be said to be current income of the Appellant within the meaning of section 208 of the Income Tax Act, 1061. In J.K. Synthetics v. CTO (1994) 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court 276, it was held that where claim for exemption was bona fide but disallowed, tax can be levied but no interest can be charged. It was not possible for the Appellant, at any time during the relevant financial year, to foresee that the proceeds of sale of shares received by it would become income of the assessee chargeable to tax. Lex non go co git ad impossible (Law cannot compel you to do impossible). Before invoking 234B of the Act, it is essential to see whether the assessee comes within the sweep of section 234(1) of the Act. The addition of ₹ 60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the impugned addition. We make it clear that although both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee s impugned cash deposits to the tune of varying sums (supra) as unexplained; the fact remains that his explanation supported by the foregoing documentary evidence of books of account, audited balance-sheet, coupled with cash books maintained at both individual as well as the company s level and sec. 143(3) assessment framed in latter case for the very assessment year have nowhere has been disputed in either of the lower proceedings. All this voluminous evidence; including the cash in issue from M/s ANPL crediencial to assessee s explanation of source of deposits. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
