2014 (12) TMI 342 - AT - Income Tax

Enhancement of income Treatment of opening balance appearing in cash book Held that - The claim of the assessee that as per the cash book for financial year 96-97 and 97-98, the assessee was having cash in hand of ₹ 14,16,946/- as on 31/03/98 is not acceptable because as per the income declared by the assessee in these years, the assessee cannot have such cash in hand and the assessee s claim regarding receipt of advance to the extent of ₹ 6 lac in assessment year 1996-97 and ₹ 8 lacs in AY 1997-98 is not supported by any credible evidence. Moreover, no valid return was filed by the assessee for any of these years - the claim of the assessee regarding having opening cash in hand of ₹ 14,16,946/- is not supported by any credible evidence assessee relied upon several cases which are held as distinguishable for various reasons - the assessee could not establish the availability of opening cash in hand as has been claimed by the assessee in the cash book and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhancement of income by the CIT(A)
2. Treatment of opening cash balance as income
3. Justification of addition made

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order enhancing the income by a specific amount. The assessee contended that the cash balance was justified based on explanations and cash book entries. The return for the relevant assessment year was filed, and the cash balance was supported by documents. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on an enquiry report highlighting discrepancies in the source of deposits and investments. The Assessing Officer questioned the validity of the returns filed for the respective years, leading to the notice under section 148. The assessee's claim of having a certain cash balance was challenged due to lack of credible evidence.

2. The Assessing Officer's findings were based on discrepancies in the cash balances shown by the assessee in the cash book for consecutive years. The increase in cash balance was attributed to alleged advances against property, which lacked supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer highlighted the absence of income declaration from property sales and the discrepancy in capital balances over the years. The lack of valid returns for the preceding years further weakened the assessee's claim regarding the cash balance.

3. The Tribunal analyzed various judgments cited by the assessee to support their claim. Each judgment was scrutinized in light of the present case's facts and circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that none of the cited judgments provided substantial support to the assessee's case. The discrepancies in the cash balances, coupled with the absence of valid returns for preceding years, led the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal. The decision was based on the failure to establish the availability of the claimed opening cash balance, as per the cash book entries and explanations provided.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, the Assessing Officer's findings, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal precedents cited.