9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 975 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - Cash in hand - peak credit for cash deposit - Held that - No alternative except to accept the opening balance of the cash in hand of ₹ 24,49,500/- as on 1.4.2005. If the opening balance of ₹ 24,49,500/- stands accepted as no appeal has been filed by the Revenue for A.Y 2005-06, in our opinion, no interference is required in the order of CIT(A) as this amount will be sufficient to off set the cash deposit of ₹ 16,90,000/- as mentioned by the AO. We accordingly sustain the order of CIT(A) allowing relief to the Assessee to the extent of ₹ 16,51,112/-. Thus, ground taken by the Revenue stands dismissed. The AO is free, if he so desires, to take the action under the Wealth Tax Act as the closing balance of cash in hand as per the cash flow statement as on 30.3.2006 comes to ₹ 27,94,699/-. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of the assessee's cash flow statement by CIT(A) without corroborative evidence. 2. Reliance on the cash flow statement for entries of cash withdrawn and deposited in various bank accounts. 3. Consideration of factual findings by AO while making additions under Section 69A for unexplained money in bank accounts. 4. Assessee's admission during the survey about depositing unaccounted business proceeds into bank accounts. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Acceptance of the Assessee's Cash Flow Statement by CIT(A) without Corroborative Evidence: The Revenue contended that CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's cash flow statement without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown an opening cash balance of Rs. 24,49,500 on 1.4.2005, which was not supported by any Wealth Tax return. However, the CIT(A) had accepted this balance based on the previous year's findings where no appeal was filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the opening balance was sufficient to offset the cash deposits, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground. 2. Reliance on the Cash Flow Statement for Entries of Cash Withdrawn and Deposited in Various Bank Accounts: The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) relied on the cash flow statement which showed that the total cash withdrawals exceeded the deposits, and there was no negative balance. For A.Y 2008-09, the opening cash balance of Rs. 52,98,699 was accepted based on the previous year's findings. The Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)'s order, noting that the Revenue did not challenge the findings for the previous years, thus validating the cash flow statement's reliance. 3. Consideration of Factual Findings by AO while Making Additions under Section 69A for Unexplained Money in Bank Accounts: The AO made additions under Section 69A for unexplained money in various assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had examined the cash flow statements and found no negative cash balance, thus deleting the additions made by the AO. For A.Y 2010-11, the CIT(A) confirmed the cheque deposit and interest but allowed relief for cash deposits based on the cash flow statement. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing the acceptance of the opening cash balances from previous years. 4. Assessee's Admission During the Survey about Depositing Unaccounted Business Proceeds into Bank Accounts: The Revenue argued that the assessee admitted during the survey to depositing unaccounted business proceeds. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the cash flow statements and previous findings, which showed sufficient opening balances to cover the deposits. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, affirming CIT(A)'s reliance on the cash flow statements. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders which allowed relief to the assessee based on the cash flow statements and opening balances from previous years. The Tribunal also dismissed the cross objections filed by the assessee as they were supportive of CIT(A)'s orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO is free to take action under the Wealth Tax Act if deemed necessary.
|
