TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank account of the company. This was not disputed by the AO in his order. The AO has also not rejected the explanation, by the company, where it is implied that the AO has accepted the source. In this case also the assessee has provided explanation regarding the source of cash deposits, and has also accepted the real estate income, filed revised return and discharged his liability in payment of taxes. We find from the order of Ld.CIT(A) that the addition of ₹ 1,74,52,500/- made on substantive basis since the loan creditor provided evidences to the satisfaction of Ld.CIT(A). As the assessee has provided documentary proof for receipt of money during the substantive assessment of the company, the addition of the same on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals)-3 [for short, CIT(A) ], Visakhapatnam in ITA No.309/2019-20/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2020-21 dated 27.11.2020 for the A.Y. 2017-18. Cross objections are filed by the assessee. Revenue has raised the following grounds : i. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) is erroneous both on the law and facts. ii. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the year under consideration, clearly stated that the claimed advance of ₹ 1,74,52,500/- to the company from out of the cash receipt of ₹ 5.20 crore was not acceptable in the absence of proof and also as this was neither admitted before the search authorities nor explained in the application filed before the Hon ble ITSC. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as invalid. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were revived and the case was posted for hearing vide this office letter dated 16.01.2019. The assessee then filed writ petition on 14.02.2019 before the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was rejected by the Hon ble High Court on 30.10.2019. The AO then, proposed various additions as detailed in paragraph 4 of the assessment order for the A.Y.2017-18. The assessee vide letter dated 18.11.2019 filed his objections / explanations with regard to all the proposed additions except for ₹ 2.60 crores as agreed by the assessee on account of income earned outside the books of account from real estate business and admitted as additional income in the application filed u/s 245 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,74,52,500/- in the bank account during the demonetisation period and it was stated that the amount was actually received from the appellant Sri Arunachalam Manickavel as loan and the source of such loan amount was amount received from M/s Gowtham Buddha Textile Park Pvt Ltd. and the real estate income admitted before the Hon ble ITSC. However, the Assessing Officer did not believe the explanation and stated that eh appellant failed to furnish proof for the claim of money receipt from M/s Gowtham Buddha Textile Park Pvt. Ltd and added the amount of ₹ 1,74,52,500/- in the hands of the company and also added the same in the hands of appellant on protective basis u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 5.5. It was further contended that during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proof was provided for the same. The Ld.DR also argued that the assessee has not filed necessary documentary proof regarding the receipt of money from M/s Gowtham Buddha Textile Park Pvt. Ltd. which was said to have been advanced to the above company. The Ld.DR relied on the assessment order and pleaded to uphold the assessment order. 5. On the other hand, the Ld.AR explained that the assessee has disclosed investments in his individual balance sheet for the A.Y.2017-18, which was also verified by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee also admitted unaccounted income of ₹ 3.65 crores for the A.Y.2015-16 and ₹ 3.70 crores for the A.Y.2016-17 and stated that the copies of the revised returns have been filed. The Ld.AR also relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive assessment, based on the evidences submitted by the company. If a protective assessment is to be invoked u/s 68 of the Act, the conditions laid down in section 68 should be satisfied. The assessee has offered explanation to the satisfaction of the AO on the credit worthiness and the source of funds deposited into the bank account of the company. This was not disputed by the AO in his order. The AO has also not rejected the explanation, by the company, where it is implied that the AO has accepted the source. In this case also the assessee has provided explanation regarding the source of cash deposits, and has also accepted the real estate income, filed revised return and discharged his liability in payment of taxes. We find from the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
