TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upporting evidence. Further in response to the show cause notice, the assessee has also explained that in the impounded documents contains cash balance as on 08.11.2016 of certain sites only and cash balance as on 08.11.2016 of New Imprest - Real Estate MCB, Imprest Bhogal Godown and Imprest Sandeep Mangla were not mentioned and in support of said contention the assessee submitted summary of all the cash books which shown the cash balance as on 08.11.2016. Also the books of the assessee are audited, AO has not pointed any defect in the cash book of the assessee nor he rejected its book of account and only on the basis of assumption that the cash withdrawal have been utilized without corroborating the same. CIT(A) has considered all the documents produced by the assessee and proceeded to delete the addition after countering each and every allegation made by the A.O. by appreciating material available on record. In the case of group companies involving identical issue arising out of same impounded documents and survey of same flagship company, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue in the favor of the Assessee. CIT(A) has committed no error in deleting the additions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age nos. 87 to 91) while the same as on 08.11.2016 as per page no. 97-100 was 11171358. 5. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law on facts, ignoring that there is no pattern of such huge cash deposits was noticed between 09.11.2015 to 31.12.2015 relating to the FY 2015-16 while Rs. 9,09,98,000/- was deposited during demonetization period i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 relating to FY 2016-17 i.e. AY 2017-18. 6. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law on facts, ignoring that the assessee only submitted that the impounded documents containing cash balance available at site offices maintained at the corporate headquarter for various exigencies but again the assessee did not produce any documentary evidences in order to establish its claim. It is not acceptable that such a going on concern i.e. company/flagship company does not maintain or keep record of such details of cash alongwith its purposes for each of the company sites separately. 7. Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law on facts, ignoring and did not discuss on the Cash in hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, assessing the income at Rs. 12,43,72,570/- vide Assessment Order dated 21/12/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 21/12/2019, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14/11/2022 allowed the Appeal filed by the assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Department of Revenue preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative addressing on the Grounds of Appeal, vehemently submitted the assessee has not proved the primary burden to prove the genuineness of the transaction as required under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act ( Act for short), but the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the said fact. Further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) has also ignored that there is no pattern of such huge cash deposits was noticed between 09/11/2015 to 31/12/2015 relating to the Financial Year 2015-16 while Rs. 9,09,98,000/- was deposited during the demonetization period, though the Assessee has not produced any documentary evidence with respect to the source of generation of such accumulated cash as on 08/11/2016, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in deleting the addition. The Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing cash balance as per pages impounded and to explain the source of cash deposit. In response, assessee submitted that the impounded pages contain cash balances of Rs. 1,11,75,337/- as on 08.11.2016 of various site office of the assessee but, does not contain cash balance as on 08.11.2016 of New Imprest-Real Estate MCB Rs. 7,91,77,139/-, Imprest Bhogal Godown Rs. 40,475/- and Sandeep Mangla- Imprest (Separate Ledger) Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and also submitted the summary of cash books / imprest maintained by the assessee showing cash balances as on 08.11.2016. Further the assessee has stated that the total cash balance as on 08.11.2016 available with the assessee including all cash books was Rs. 10,03,92,951/- out of which Rs. 9,13,00,000/- was deposited and explained that the cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 as source of cash deposit. It is the case of the Assessee that the source of cash deposit is out of earlier cash withdrawals from the bank and submitted relevant bank statement showing cash withdrawals, cash deposit, entire cash book for the period 01.04.2016 to 30.12.2016 and comparative charts for the year under consideration and preceding year. 9. Ld. AO rejected the explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is not tenable. 12. As regards allegation of Ld. AO on comparing charts of FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17, there was no match of the cash deposits with the corresponding period of the previous year, Ld. CIT(A) has held that cash withdrawals and deposits are high and similar for both the financial years. Ld. CIT(A) also held that substantial cash withdrawals as well as deposits is very much regular feature of the business of the assessee. Therefore, the trend of cash withdrawals and deposits were similar and not unusual in both the years. 13. As regards allegation of Ld. AO that all the sale are through Cheque/RTGS/DD therefore, no question of cash sale, Ld. CIT(A) has held that as a matter of fact the assessee has not shown any meaningful or unusual cash sales to explain the cash deposit during demonetization. 14. As regards allegation of Ld. AO that the flagship company, M/s Omaxe Limited has surrendered a huge amount of unaccounted income, whereas the assessee has not disclosed such income. Ld. CIT(A) has held that the surrender made by the flagship company does not automatically translate into any acceptance by the Assessee. Ld. CIT(A) also held that the surrender made by the flags ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
