9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) should have accepted the submission and evidence submitted before CIT(A) during the course of hearing. 4. That the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed the legal mistake in respect of making/ sustain the addition when the proof of payment of consideration was made in the immediately preceding year. Hence, the addition made and sustain during the year is not in accordance with the law. 5. That the entire amount was explained but rejected without assigning any reason. 6. That the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of IT Act is illegal and against the law as such the assessment completed is illegal. 7. That the charging of interest is illegal and against the law." 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case, this Tribunal was pleased to recall its order dated 07.09.2021 to decide Ground No.2 raised by the assessee. Ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is reads as under:- 2. "That the Order is illegal in view of the fact that the Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Assessing Authority fails to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavits submitted before the CIT(A). In view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 565 (Raj), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that since books of accounts had not been rejected, the mere fact that there had been a fall in the g.p. rate would not lead to the inference that the expenditure had been inflated. 6.3. In case of CIT vs. Padamchand Ram Gopal (1970) 76 ITR 719 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no addition is justified if the books of accounts are not rejected. 6.4. We have also seen the other case law relied upon by the learned authorised representative and we find that the book results cannot be ignored if the books of accounts are not rejected or any defect were not pointed out by the AO. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A). On the reasons given by CIT (A) and on the reasons given here by us, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed here by us. The above order is applicable in toto . The order is order of the co-ordinate Bench. It is further submitted that the amount of rupees two lacs were given in the last year that is AY 2012-13 and the amount belongs to last year cannot be treated in any way in the year u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... draw your attention that the assessee categorically stated in the statement recorded before the A.D.I. that he is maintaining books of account and also produce the balance sheet thereof before the ADI and CIT(A). The statement of assessee is at page 14 to 16 and the version in respect of maintenance of books is at page 20 of the said statement. The books of accounts are being maintained and the assessing officer mention that assessee is not maintaining the books of account and the Commissioner of Income Tax follow the same reason best known to him. From the perusal of the balance sheet you will observe that amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance in the immediately preceding year. The income tax officer fails to accept the same when balance sheet was there. The copies of balance sheets for the year ending on 31st March 2011, 31st March 2012 and 31st March 2013 are being attached in paper book at page No 14 to 16. As far as the savings is concerned the ASSESSEE categorically even in the statement recorded before A.D.I. also stated that he is having no income other than the agriculture. The assessee submitted cash flow which is page at 8, in which details has been given but the assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.3 of the impugned order has decided the issue as under:- 6.3. "I have carefully consider the observation made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, submission and additional evidences filed by the A/R of the appellant, remand report of the Assessing Officer and rejoinder filed by the A/R of the appellant. I find that the Assessing officer made the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- making detail observation that the appellant produce the Jamabandi and Girdawari but no bills of sale of agricultural products are produced. In support to his claim of source of investment the assessee produced a page giving head payment, income, loan and saving account on a white paper and apart from this produced nothing to his support. In view of this it is clear that it is crooked story written only on white paper. However, benefit of agricultural income, KCC loan is allowed to the extent of Rs.4.17 lakh. The A/R of the appellant submitted that the appellant is having only agricultural income. He is having agriculture land 60 Big ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the evidence. On this proposition, we found support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi vs. ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh-Trib), ITO vs. Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh-Trib.), Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR (Raj) 571 : (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 44, Shrikumar vs. ITO (1990) 36 TTJ (Jp) 538, Smt. Savitri Devi vs. ITO (1985) 11 ITD 422 (Del), CTO vs. Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO vs. Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh- Trib.), ACTO vs. Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Ltd. vs. State of MP (1966) 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Through LRs. vs. Asstt. CIT (2007) 208 CTR (Raj) 159, CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 1972 CTR (SC) 411: (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) and Union of India vs. Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation (1994) 72 Taxman 43 (SC). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the amount seized from the assessee at the Delhi Air Port belonged to the Lux Industries Ltd. and not the assessee. The AO as well as the learned CIT(A) wrongly made and confirmed the assessment and added ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
