9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 and Shri Sandeep Pandey for assessment year 2001-02. 2. In all these appeals, one ground is regarding addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of cash in hand as on 01/04/2000 being opening balance in financial year 2000-01 relevant to assessment year 2001-02. The amount of such addition is Rs. 1,35,110/- in the case of Shri Anurag Pandey, Rs. 3,15,379/- in the case of Smt. Asha Pandey, and Rs. 66,180/- in the case of Sunil Kumar Pandey. In the case of Sandeep Pandey, such addition is Rs. 99,130/-. There is no other addition in the case of Anurag Pandey and Sandeep Pandey in assessment year 2001-02. In the case of Sunil Kumar Pandey also, there is no other addition in assessment year 2001-02. In assessment year 2002-03, an addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his year, the assessee has shown Rs. 1,35,110/- as brought forward cash balance but the assessee could not produce any direct evidence to prove the availability of cash. The CIT(A) has reproduced the cash flow ststement for assessment year 2000-01 on page No. 3 of his order. In this case, search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in Pandey group of cases on 19/04/2006. Return for assessment year 2001-02 was filed by Anuran Pandey on 31/10/2001 declaring total income at Rs. 84,981/- as noted by the Assessing Officer in Para 3 of the assessment order because in reply to notice, issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 153 C, it was submitted by the assessee that the said return filed on 31/10/2001 may be treated as return filed in response to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment proceedings, the assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 3,15,379/- as brought forward cash balance. In this case also, it is noted by the Assessing Officer in Para 4 that in response to notice issued u/s 153C, it was submitted by the assessee that original return of income was filed on 31/10/2001, which may be treated as return filed in response to this notice. Hence, in this case also, the assessment has not abated and therefore, the facts are identical with the facts in the case of Anurag Pandey and therefore, on the same basis, the addition made by Assessing Officer is not sustainable. We hold accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 8. Now we take up the appeal in the case of Sunil Kumar Pandey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pandey and therefore, on the same basis, the addition made by Assessing Officer is not sustainable because the same is not on the basis of any incriminating material found in search. We hold accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 12. Now we take up the appeal in the case of Sunil Kumar Pandey for assessment year 2003-04 i.e. I.T.A. No.169/Lkw/2014. In this year, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 60,000/- by alleging that the assessee has constructed a boundary wall and the Assessing Officer estimated the cost of boundary wall at Rs. 60,000/-. In this year also, the Assessing Officer has noted in Para 3 of the assessment order that the assessee filed original return of income on 14/09/2003. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding addition of Rs. 84,400/- for cash found in course of search and Rs. 40,000/- being advance received from Shri Ram Babu, which is treated by the Assessing Officer as unexplained. In support of the cash found in course of search, the assessee has furnished cash flow statement on the date of search i.e. 18/04/2006 but the Assessing Officer has not accepted the same by stating that this is self-serving document. It is noted by the CIT(A) in Para 5.2 of his order that in the bedroom of Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey and Kalpana Pandey, cash of Rs. 84,400/- was found against cash availability of Rs. 63,389/-. The CIT(A) has confirmed addition of balance amount of Rs. 21,011/- and allowed relief to the extent of Rs. 63,389/-. Since the availability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de addition of Rs. 33,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account in the present year, which the assessee could not explain. It is noted by CIT(A) in Para 7.2 of his order that before him also, the assessee could not offer any explanation regarding this entry. Before us also, no such explanation was furnished and therefore, on this issue, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. 21. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee Sunil Kumar Pandey for assessment year 2007-08 i.e. I.T.A. No.170/Lkw/2014 and in the case of Sandeep Kumar Pandey for assessment year 2005-06 i.e. I.T.A. No.172/Lkw/2014 are dismissed and the remaining six appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
