TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns of the firm M/s Daya Properties Finance and other individuals for Assessment Year 2016-17 were very much before the Ld. A.O. They have been scrutinized during the assessment proceedings and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and no addition have been made. If the Ld. A.O was not satisfied with the cash in hand shown by the assessee and individuals as on 31.3.2016 he should have taken necessary action during Assessment Year 2016-17 but in absence there of it has to be presumed that the Ld. A.O has accepted the position of cash in hand as on 31.3.2016 shown by the assessee firm and its partners and wife of the partner which stood. So as on 1.4.2016 assessee had cash in hand in its business concern and other individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in making the addition of ₹ 15,02,020/- on account of treating it to be the undisclosed income of the appellant when such amount and its sources was already explained to AO, along with the evidence. 3. That the A.O has erred to make the addition by ignoring the facts and documents submitted by appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. That the A.O does not have any cogent material, so as to lead the A.O, to formation of belief that such amount is undisclosed income of the appellant, particularly so when such amount along with the documentary evidence was explained to him. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is decided. 3. Brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated it as an after thought. Assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act by Ld. A.O at ₹ 40,91,250/- making addition of ₹ 15,02,020/- on account of disclosure made during the course of search but not offered to tax. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions made by the assessee but finally confirmed the action of Ld. A.O and the relevant extract of his finding is mentioned below:- Xxxxx ---xxx j) Thus, from the above analysis it emerges that : i. The retraction was made after a period of twenty five months; ii.It was never communicated to the Departmental Authorities, merely not disclosed with the return of income; iii. From record it is impossible to hold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been scrutinized u/s 143(3) of the Act and no additions have been made. This establishes that the department has accepted the cash position as on 31.3.2016 held with the assessee firm and its partners and the wife of the partner aggregating to ₹ 16,50,360/-. This cash sum of ₹ 16,50,360/- is sufficient to cover up the difference of ₹ 15,02,020/- (amount surrendered during the search ₹ 37,02,020/- less amount surrendered in the return of income at ₹ 22 lakhs). Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on various judgments in the written submission. 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of both the lower authorities and contended that assessee has not retracted the surrender in the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue needs to be examined in the light of judicial precedence. 10. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench Pune in the case of Moreshwar Mahadev Bhondve v/s ACIT (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 453 has held that:- Even if the retraction is made after a long gap, it should be rejected by cogent reasoning. The- same was possible by demonstrating the stand of the assessee taken by way of books of account prepared and produced at assessment stage as well as appellate stage. According to the Assessing Officer, sufficient documents were not filed in this regard. While in appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) observed that the expenses found genuine were allowed by the Assessing Officer while he expenses not supported by evidence were disallowed by the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.03.2016 1,34,696 Total 16,50,360 12. We further find that subsequent to the search and in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act assessee had filed the return of income for which partnership firm and other individuals for Assessment Year 2014-15 to Assessment Year 2017-18. The instant appeal relates to Assessment Year 2017-18 and the issue before us is that whether the assessee had sufficient source of cash to explain the sum of ₹ 15,02,020/- found at the time of search conducted on 30.8.2016. 13. We find that the Income Tax Returns of the firm M/s Daya Properties Finance and other individuals for Assessment Year 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
