9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 (in short 'the Act'), dated 30.11.2018. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "(1) The learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not taken into account the show cause notice issued by the A.O where in proposal of addition of Rs. 76,808/- was made where as in the assessment order addition of Rs. 5,76,808/- is made miserably by him for the reason best known to him. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs. 5,76,808/- be deleted. (2) The learned CIT (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,76,808/- without giving cognize to the Audit Report of the partnership firm of M/s ASK EHS Engineering and Consultants which is a clean cheat of cash transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and in the circumstances of the case such penal actions should not be initiated. (7) The Appellant may be permitted to rectify, modify or to withdraw grounds of appeal duly raised and to introduce new grounds of appeal." 3. Succinct facts qua the issue are that before us the assessee is an Individual and filed his return of income declaring of Rs. 19,09,260/- on 17.10.2016. Consequent to selection of the assessee's case for scrutiny assessment through CASS, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 21.07.2017 was issued and duly served on assessee. Further for the purpose of assessment, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated 09.08.2018 calling details was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was recorded on 26.11.2018 therein the assessee failed to explain the transaction. 5. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee in his capital account had shown that total capital introduced by him was to the tune of Rs. 10,77,708/- however, the details was given for Rs. 10,00,900/- only. Therefore, the difference amount of Rs. 76,808/- as found in the capital account (Rs. 10,77,708/-) and as per details submitted (Rs. 10,00,900/-) of Rs. 76,800/- (Rs. 10,77,708- Rs. 10,00,900) was also treated as unexplained cash credit and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Therefore, total addition made by the Assessing Officer was to the tune of Rs. 5,76,808/- (Rs. 5,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that assessee was having sufficient cash-in-hand to deposit the amount in the bank out of genuine sources. The ld Counsel also submitted that addition u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made, as the assessee does not maintain books of accounts. Hence, no addition should be made. 9. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue defended the order passed by NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) and argued that assessee has failed to prove the source of cash deposit with documentary evidences therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be sustained. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us Ld. Counsel submitted the bank statement of assessee, which is maintained in HD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
