TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh book which cannot be believed in the absence of corroborative evidence such as bank statement, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account along with tax audit report for the year under consideration. When the cash is found with an assessee, it is the duty of the assessee to prove the source of such cash by providing sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion to satisfy the source of such cash. In the absence of such proof, the Revenue Authorities are bound to make additions. Mere reflecting the unexplained cash in the books of accounts in absence of any supportive documents, cannot be ground for deletion of the addition. In our considered opinion, CIT(A) has committed an error in deleting the addition. Therefore, the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9A on the ground that the same was duly recorded in the books of account and addition u/s 69A of the Act can only be made when the assessee is found to be in possession of money bullion, jewellery, etc, not recorded in his books of account without appreciating the fact that recording of the transaction in cash book was an afterthought exercise to make the cash appear to be from genuine source. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in totally deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A on the ground that applicability of section 40A(3) has to be without appreciating the fact that addition was made u/s 69A and not u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 3. There is a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. A.O. made disallowance of Rs. 6,23,081/- u/s 14A of the Act and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,06,23,081/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 17/12/2018, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT (A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 03/07/2019 deleted the addition of Rs. 1 crore made on account of unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the said deletion of Rs. 1 crore by the CIT(A), which was made u/s 69A of the Act by the A.O., the Revenue has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 7. The Ld. DR vehemently submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 crore on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that, Sh. Rakesh Gupta did not have any link with the transaction and he was just providing accommodation to Sh. Panak Goel on the request of Sh. Mayank Bindal, the Director of the assessee company. Further submitted that, the transaction is duly explained which was recorded in the books of accounts. Therefore, addition u/s 69A cannot be made, which has been rightly examined and deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) which requires no interference in the hand of the Tribunal. 10. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. 11. It emerges from the record that the cash was seized on 05/06/2016 from Mr. Pankaj Goel, who is an employee of the assessee Company. In order to verify the facts, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h book for the day 04/06/2016. It is found that the representative of the assessee has not produced complete cash book even after giving sufficient opportunity, the said cash book produced before the A.O. had no opening balance of cash in hand. The representative of the assessee furnished one more cash book on 13/03/2016 covering the dates from 01/04/2016 to 04/06/2016, but the assessee failed to provide audited balance sheet, profit and loss account along with tax audited report for financial year 2015-16 relevant to Ay 2016-17, therefore, the cash in hand as on 31/03/2106 could not be established by the assessee before the A.O. Admittedly, the assessee company is the owner of the seized cash, but the assessee has failed to explain with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h withdrawals have been actually done by the assessee himself and not by any other person to whom the cheque has been issued to draw the cash for any other transactions. Further it is highly impossible to a prudent person to draw the cash to the tune of Rs. 1 crore in a period of two months into several parts and accumulate the same for the purpose of making the payment for purchase of husk after 2 months. Further nothing on record to establish that the cash withdrawn in past two months by the assessee were the same that of seized by the Department. 15. When the cash is found with an assessee, it is the duty of the assessee to prove the source of such cash by providing sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion to satisfy the source of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
