9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case as well in law, the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi has erred in upholding the AO's action making addition of Rs. 13,30,000 on account of the alleged unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, being under gross misconception, misappreciation of facts and misinterpretation of the provisions of the law, is without jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, invalid, arbitrary, void ab initio, and hence, liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, both the lower authorities have grievously failed to appreciate in the right, lawful and proper perspectives the submissions made by the appellant in compliances to the notices u/s 142(1)/SCN offeri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice on 14/09/2019 requiring certain details. In response to such notice, the assessee furnished required details. On perusal of such details, the Assessing Officer found that in F.Y. 2015-16, the assessee has not made any cash deposit. The assessee is not engaged in any business activity and has filed return under ITR-2. The Assessing Officer issued summon under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) to assessee to attend his office on 18/11/2019. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee remained absent on the given date and sought adjournment on the ground of marriage function in his family. On other date fixed on 26/11/2019, the assessee remained absent. The Assessing Officer, thus issued detailed show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee submitted that written submission filed before the Assessing Officer may be considered as submission. 4. The ld. CIT (A) after referring the entire assessment order, noted that the assessee has raised three grounds of appeal. The ld. CIT (A) further noted that the summon under Section 131 of the Act was issued to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer. The assessee claimed that he had cash balance of Rs. 9,82,640/-at the beginning of financial year and had received Rs. 3.50 lacs on 25/10/2016 from his partnership firm Mahalaxmi Associates, on account of settlement of dispute among the partners. No documentary evidence is furnished in support of such claim. The assessee failed to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the assessee was having cash balance of Rs. 9,82,640/-and Rs. 3.50 lacs received against settlement from partnership firm. The assessee, thus, substantiated the complete cash deposit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that when closing balance of cash in hand for earlier year was sufficient to explain the cash deposit in subsequent year, no addition could be made as unexplained money. The assessee apart from income from house property and income from other sources have agricultural income and was having sufficient cash balance and only currency notes of high denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 was deposited. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act is not at all ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entary evidence filed by the assessee in response to show cause notice before the Assessing Officer. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13.30 lacs by taking view that the assessee is not engaged in the business activity and thus no believable theory of cash in hand. Against the cash receipt of Rs. 3.50 lacs, the assessee has not furnished any evidence. The ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the addition with similar observation. The ld. CIT (A) also held that the assessee has not filed single document to substantiate his claim. 8. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the similar submission as made before the Assessing Officer. Not a single document to substantiate the cash receipt either from the alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
