Cash deposited

This query is : Open

Querist : Anonymous

Querist : Anonymous (Querist)

05 January 2012 Can anybody provide me the Supplementary Deed for Firm Name change & details procedure for the same???????

Yogesh Shah

Yogesh Shah (Querist)
Follow

05 January 2012 Dear Mr. Raghav

Thanks for reply

I was appointed a CA for scrutiny.

As I was deposited cash from my own cash on hand and withdrawn the same with in 1 to 2 days and same transaction was done so many
times.

As I was also produce my cash book to ITO. than also he was disallowed.

As I was decide to go for appeal. Any strong explanation ag. it.

CA Sanjeev Kr Jain

CA Sanjeev Kr Jain (Expert)
Follow

06 January 2012 ITA NO. 4183 & CO NO. 348/DEL/2010
A.Y. 2006-07
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 4183/Del/2010
A.Y. : 2006-07
Income Tax Officer,
Ward –20(3),
New Delhi
vs. Sh. Hari Shankar,
A-309, 1st floor, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi &
A-1, CC Colony,
Delhi
(PAN: AKQPP7101B)
AND
C.O. NO. 348/DEL/2010
(IN ITA NO. 4183/DEL/2010)
A.Y. 2006-07
Sh. Hari Shankar,
A-309, 1st floor, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi &
A-1, CC Colony,
Delhi
(PAN: AAACP0256C)
(APPELLANTS)
vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward –20(3),
New Delhi
(RESPONDENTS)
ASSESSEE BY : SH. B.L. GUPTA, FCA
DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. D.R.
ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM
This appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee
emanate out of order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
dated 23.6.2010 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07.
ITA NO. 4183 & CO NO. 348/DEL/2010
A.Y. 2006-07
2
REVENUE’S APPEAL
2. The first issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of ` 11,42,000/- made by the
Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the IT Act as unexplained cash deposits.
3. Assessing Officer in this case noted that information had been
received showing total cash deposits of ` 11,42,000/- made by the
assessee with Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi. Assessee was
required to file cash flow statement alongwith details of expenses
claimed with bills/ vouchers. Assessing Officer further noted that
despite several adjournments, no details were filed. In the absence of
any detail Assessing Officer noted that the cash deposits of ` 11.42
lacs made with Standard Chartered Bank remained unexplained and
the same is treated as income from undisclosed sources.
4. Before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) assessee
submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of consultancy and
liaisoning and he has filed return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on
19.2.2007 declaring income of ` 1,17,250/- which were processed u/s
143(1). It was further submitted that Assessing Officer has noted that
cash deposits of ` 11,42,000/- were made whereas cash deposits were
actually ` 10,02,000/- and not ` 11,42,000/-. It was further submitted
that source of cash deposits was withdrawal from the same bank
account and the purpose of withdrawal was to show more turnover to
the to the bank for issue for ATM/Platinum card as suggested by the
bank. It was further submitted that bank account statement of
Standard Chartered Bank from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 alongwith the
cash flow was filed with the Assessing Officer but the same were not
considered by the Assessing Officer. Assessee further submit one
ITA NO. 4183 & CO NO. 348/DEL/2010
A.Y. 2006-07
3
reason for withdrawal of cash of ` 13,93,500/- was to show more
turnover to the bank for issue of ATM/Platinum card as suggested by
the bank. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sent the cash
flow and copy of bank statement and other evidences under rule 46A
to the Assessing Officer for examination. Assessing Officer
commented that no detail was provided during the course of
proceedings. Considering the submissions the Ld. Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) held as under:-
“I have carefully considered the facts of the case, perused
the assessment order, remand report, rejoinder and the
materials placed before me by the appellant. The appellant
is an individual who filed return declaring income of
` 1,17,250/-. Based on an information that the appellant had
made cash deposits of ` 11,42,000/- assessment
proceedings were initiated. During the course of
assessment proceedings the appellant had shown non
cooperative attitude and did not filed cash flow statement
alongwith the details of expenses claimed with bills /
vouchers. The Assessing Officer completed the
assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) treating the cash
deposits as income from undisclosed sources and another
addition of ` 44,585/- on account unverified expenses. The
appellant has contended that the he was denied sufficient
opportunity of being heard and to furnish the requisite
details. He has further asserted that on 27.11.2008 the
day, on which the last opportunity was provided, he went to
attend the proceedings but the Assessing Officer was not
present. The appellant further contended that the action
ITA NO. 4183 & CO NO. 348/DEL/2010
A.Y. 2006-07
4
of the Assessing Officer was against the natural justice and
without providing further opportunity he passed the order
on 08.12.2008. From the perusal of the assessment
record and facts of the case, it is evident that enough
opportunities were provided to the appellant and the
contention of the appellant has no force. Even, if it is
considered true that the Assessing Officer was on leave on
27.11.2008, the appellant could have attended the
proceedings on the next working day. The contention of
the appellant that he was not provided sufficient
opportunities is therefore rejected.
Concerning the cash deposits, the appellant has
furnished cash flow statement, bank statements and details
of commission received from M/s Thunder Bird Industries
Pvt. Ltd. The appellant has contended that owing to the
nature of his business and place of residence i.e. a village
he had to make withdrawals from the bank and deposit the
cash in the bank. The reasons given by the appellant are
with cogent reasons. The additional evidences furnished
by the appellant were sent to Assessing Officer under Rule
46A for verification / examination and comments. The
Assessing Officer after making enquiries found that the
appellant had in fact deposited cash amounting to `
10,02,200/- and withdrawals of ` 13,93,500/-. This fact
substantiate the contention of the appellant that he used to
withdraw money from the bank using platinum card to
purchaser the agricultural land and villagers asked for
payments in cash, and whenever the deal did not
ITA NO. 4183 & CO NO. 348/DEL/2010
A.Y. 2006-07
5
materialized he used to deposit the money in bank. The
Assessing Officer has not brought out any adverse material
on record to controvert the theory of the appellant. Further
the appellant has furnished all the relevant documents and
nothing adverse was noted. Since, the appellant has
successfully explained the source and nature of the cash
deposits, the addition made by the Assessing Officer fails
the test of judicial scrutiny and is therefore deleted.”
5. Against this order the revenue is in appeal before us.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. As it
has been admitted by the Assessing Officer that there are withdrawals
of ` 13,93,500/- from the same bank account and deposits of
` 10,02,200/- in the same bank. This fact substantiated the
contention of the assessee that he used to withdraw money from the
bank using platinum card to purchase the agricultural land and
villagers asked for payment in cash and whenever the deal did not
materialize, he used to deposit the money in the bank. As noted by
the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Assessing Officer has
not brought out any adverse record to controvert the submissions of
the assessee. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in
the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and uphold
the same.
7. The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of
` 44,585/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unverified
expenses.
ITA NO. 4183 & CO NO. 348/DEL/2010
A.Y. 2006-07
6
8. On this issue Assessing Officer noted that assessee has shown
receipts from business of ` 2,95,550/- against which expenses of `
1,78,340/- has also been claimed. Assessing Officer noted that as the
assessee has not filed details of such expenses with bills / vouchers,
therefore, ` 44,585/- being 25% of such expenses is being disallowed
for want of verification.
9. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) noted that assessee has submitted the details and proof of
expenses and the same were sent for examination to Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer has not commented on this account. Hence, Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that in the absence of any
contrary remarks /findings, the bills / vouchers are taken as genuine.;
Therefore, he held that expenses claimed by the assessee were
genuine and justified and the addition made on this account was not
sustainable.
10. Against this order the revenue is in appeal before us.
11. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We
find that Assessing Officer has made adhoc disallowance for the
reasons that details of expenses with bills and vouchers were not
produced before him. The same were produced before the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same were sent to the
Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had not made any comment
in this regard. Under the circumstances, the vouchers etc. are now
available and Assessing Officer’s disallowance solely based on lack of
evidence cannot be sustained. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in
the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this
ITA NO. 4183 & CO NO. 348/DEL/2010
A.Y. 2006-07
7
account and we affirm the same. In the result, revenue’s appeal is
dismissed.
ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION
12. Before us ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall not
be pressing the Cross Objection, as such the cross objection is
dismissed as not pressed.
13. In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the cross objection by
the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/11/2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
[C.L. SETHI] [SHAMIM YAHYA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date 12/11/2010
SRB
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
TRUE COPY By Order,
Deputy Registrar,
ITAT, Delhi Benches

Upgrade to CAclubindia Pro. Subscribe Now!