9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entry of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.4.1996 was on account of reintroduction of the said amount had rightly not been accepted. - Decided against the assessee - ITA No. 390 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Since the Registry has not been able to send the files of this case on account of the fire incident in the concerned Branch of the Court, learned counsel for the revenue has furnished photostat copies of the paper books which are taken on record and the same are treated as reconstructed files of the appeal. 2. This appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Car expenses and depreciation Rs.1,22,388/- 3. Telephone Expenses Rs.13,000/- 4. Low household withdrawals Rs.72,000/- 4. Against the aforesaid additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the CIT(A) ]. The CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash amount and modified the additions on account of low household expenses from a sum of Rs.72,000/- to a sum of Rs.60,000/- and telephone expenses from Rs.13,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. Still feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal pleading that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- added as unexplained cash was totally unwarranted as for the assessment year 1996-97, the CIT(A) in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, controverting the submissions aforesaid, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that it has been concurrently recorded by the authorities below that the source of Rs.1,00,000/- was not explained by the assessee and, therefore, it has been rightly added. 8. After giving thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. 9. The authorities below have concurrently recorded finding of fact that Rs.1,00,000/- introduced in the books of account by the assessee on 10.4.1996 was not out of Rs.1,64,000/- received by him on 9.1.1995 on cancellation of sale deed. The findings recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- and Rs.1,40,000/- when a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- was already available with him from the cancellation of the sale deed because the sum of Rs.64,000/- is claimed to have been utilized by the assessee for construction of the wall before 11.8.95. It does not appeal to reason as to when the cash of Rs.1,64,000/- was available with the assessee from the cancellation of the sale deed then what was the necessity with the assessee for making withdrawals of Rs.17,700/- and Rs.1,40,000/- on 10.3.95. 10. Even before us the assessee has not been able to explain as to why the assessee withdrew this amount of Rs.17,700/- and Rs.1,40,000/- on 10.3.95 from his books of accounts when a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- in cash was already available with him. It is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and accordingly the order of CIT(A) in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs.1 lakh is upheld and the ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 10. The counsel for the assessee was unable to justify withdrawal made by the assessee on 10.3.1995 in case any part of the amount of Rs.1,64,000/- received on 9.1.1995 on account of cancellation of sale deed was available with him. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee that the entry of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.4.1996 was on account of reintroduction of the said amount had rightly not been accepted. The findings recorded are based on the material on record and the view taken by the authorities below is a plausible one in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
