9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 966 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - HELD THAT - Unexplained cash credits can very well be added even if they have not credited in the relevant previous year in issue cannot be accepted in view of decision of Shri Ivan Singh 2020 (2) TMI 850 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT making it clear that the clinching statutory expression that previous year in sec. 68 of the Act has to be interpreted the previous year relevant to the assessment year in issue only. We therefore see no merit in Revenue s instant first substantive grievance. The same stand rejected therefore. Disallowance of expenditure @ 10% - CIT-A partly / restricting assessee s expenditure addition - HELD THAT - There is no rebuttal coming from the Revenue s side that the assessee had very well filed all the corresponding details and evidence on records and the Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire claim amount under various head(s). We therefore see no merit in the Revenue s second substantive grievance as well. Unexplained cash credits addition - HELD THAT - The able assistance of both the learned representative(s)that the assessee s cash-in-hand-cum-books of account as on 01.04.2012 was ₹ 3,98,519/- followed by similar withdrawals / deposit his cash-in-hand on 31.03.2013 was at ₹ 2 ,06,974/- only remaining unexplained from the taxpayer s side. This is what appears to have been prompted the CIT(A) could add the balance figure of ₹ 2,06,974/- only. All these facts and figures have remained undisputed from the Revenue s side. We thus see no reasons to revive the entire addition figure in question. This third and last substantive ground is also rejected therefore. - Revenue appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the case. 2. Deletion of unexplained cash credits addition. 3. Restriction of expenditure disallowance. 4. Revival of unexplained cash credits addition. 5. Alleged violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay: The Tribunal condoned the delay of eleven days in filing the case after considering the consent of both parties and the Revenue's condonation petition. The case proceeded for adjudication on merits following the delay condonation. 2. Deletion of Unexplained Cash Credits Addition: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the unexplained cash credits addition of ?2,50,000. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the amount in question was not credited in the assessee's books during the relevant previous year. The Tribunal referred to the audited financial statements and balance-sheet to support the deletion of the addition, rejecting the Revenue's argument based on the interpretation of the previous year in sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Restriction of Expenditure Disallowance: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the expenditure disallowance from ?5,62,738 to ?56,274. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument as the assessee had provided all necessary details and evidence, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's grievance. 4. Revival of Unexplained Cash Credits Addition: The Revenue sought to revive the unexplained cash credits addition of ?11,01,350, which was restricted to ?20,694 by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after reviewing the cash-in-hand and books of account, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on undisputed facts and figures, rejecting the Revenue's plea to revive the entire addition. 5. Alleged Violation of Rule 46A: The Revenue alleged a violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules regarding the admission of additional evidence in lower appellate proceedings. However, the Tribunal found no evidence on record supporting such an allegation, leading to the rejection of this technical ground. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decisions made by the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of unexplained cash credits addition, restriction of expenditure disallowance, and revival of unexplained cash credits addition. The alleged violation of Rule 46A was also dismissed due to lack of supporting material on record.
|
