TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer (in short ld. "AO") were supplied by the assessee from time to time. After making various additions ld. AO assessed the income at Rs. 1,76,31,290/-. Assessee challenged the additions before ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 3. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. That regarding the addition made to the tune of Rs. 11,52,934/- under the head undisclosed turnover, the Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag erred in deleting the addition. The Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag, relied upon the evidence put forwarded by the assessee before him in this regard and did not take into account the material evidence brought on the record by the Assessing officer. 2. That regarding the addition made to the tune of Rs. 94,71,000/- under the head increase in capital, the Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag, erred in deleting the addition. The Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag, relied upon the evidence put forwarded by the assessee before him in this regard and did not take into account the fact brought on the record by the Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld.CIT (A) Hazaribag, relied upon some judicial pronouncements and deleted the said ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neously, the issue under consideration is also adjudicated as under: (i) At the outset, there is an arithmetical mistake and the AO has not provided the correct working for the addition. It is only the last bill amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- which was not taken into account while filing the TDS Return by the contractee Government Department (EE, REO, Works Division, Hazaribag) (ii) The appellant has already declared higher turnover as per the audited profit & loss account as compared to the gross receipts as appearing in the Form No. 26AS. (iii) The AO has not established that the appellant has actually received the said amount of Rs. 11,52,934/-. (iv) The AR has furnished detailed written submission along with requisite documentary evidence which satisfactorily explains the contention of the appellant. In view of the above, it is held that the AO is not justified in making the addition of Rs. 11,52,934/- as undisclosed turnover of the appellant. Therefore, the said addition of Rs. 11,52,934/- is hereby deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed." 8. From perusal of the above finding of ld. CIT(A) as well as the submissions made by the assessee before the lower a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also brought out the legal provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, decision of the Hon'ble SC on interpretation of statutes as well as various other court decisions establishing that the amount involved is not covered under the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (iii) During the appellate proceedings the AR has also furnished the requisite documentary evidence to explain the source of receipt of loan of Rs. 94,71,000/- during the FY relevant to AY 2012-13. (iv) The AR has furnished detailed written submission along with requisite documentary evidence which satisfactorily explains the contention of the appellant. In view of the above, it is held that the AO is not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and making the addition of Rs. 94,71,000/- on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the said addition of Rs. 94,71,000/- is hereby deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed." 10. From perusing the finding of ld. CIT(A) and also considering the facts of the case, we find that the assessee is a partner in M/s. Baba Baidyanath Constructio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment order and the written and oral submissions of the AR have been considered. The following are relevant for deciding the issue under consideration. Simultaneously, the issue under consideration is also adjudicated as under: (i) At the outset, there is an arithmetical mistake as the amount received by the appellant from M/s Baba Baidyanath Construction during the year under consideration is Rs. 46,67,558/- whereas the AO has wrongly stated as Rs. 46,86,305/-. (ii) It is stated that the provisions of section 68 has been erroneously invoked for the addition of Rs. 46,86,305/- due to the following: (a) The identity of M/s Baba Baidyanath Construction is established with the Partnership Deed, PAN & ITR. Moreover, the appellant is also partner in the firm. (b) The genuineness of the transactions are established as the transactions were made through account payee cheque and there were no cash deposits and the receipts were only from the Government Department. (c) The creditworthiness of the transaction is also established by way of Form 16A issued by Government Department, Bank Statement, etc. The ultimate source of fund is from Government of Jharkhand. (d) The A....