9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in law and on facts of the case. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act of Rs. 15,08,401/- on account of unexplained cash credit made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of Rs. 15,08,401/- on account of unexplained cash credit made by the Ld. Assessing Officer, without rejecting the books of accounts and without appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name and style of petrol Metro filling station. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in his bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank & Axis Bank. In response to the notice, it was stated that the amount was deposited out of cash sales of petrol products. However, the AO on the basis of some inquiry, treated the sum of INR 15,08,401/- being unexplained and added the same into the income of the assessee. Thus, he framed the assessment vide assessment order dated 28.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and assessed the income of the assessee at INR 17,03,310/-. 5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was duly shown in the Audited Financial Statements and VAT Returns and further the amount representing the debtors could not be added u/s. 68 of the Act as appellant's unexplained cash credit. I find that nowherein the submission made by the appellant, the appellant had explained how and why the sale claimed to have been made by the appellant to R Sai Transport Company on one date i.e. on 10/11/2016 amounting to Rs. 15,08,401/- which was denied by the said party as having been purchased, had been explained either before the AO or before the appellate authority. A plea can be taken by the appellant which has also been raised in the ground that due opportunity was not given to the appellant while making the addition of Rs. 15,08,401/- by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The appellant contention that the same was the debtor cannot be considered in view of the facts that the very sales effected was not beyond question in view of the denial of the said party and therefore linking the same with debtor by the appellant for which the provisions of section 68 could not be applied, in my opinion, is not correct and justified as allegedly claimed by the appellant in the submission made as quoted above referring to the judicial decisions. I therefore hold that the AO was justified in making the addition of Rs. 15,08,401/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act in the case of the appellant in the assessment order. No interference in this regard is called for. The addition so made is therefore con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
