9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account treating the same as explained by allowing credit of cash withdrawn from the bank accounts of the assessee on earlier dates despite the fact that the assessee failed to explain reasons for such cash withdrawals and utilization of the same." Grounds in Cross Objection "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance of all the expense @ 20% on ad hoc basis. The disallowance being arbitrary. The same may kindly be deleted. 2. (i) The learned CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and circumstances of the case confirm as Sum of Rs. 13,79,770/- on account of unexplained credits in the bank account. (ii) That the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,500/- was also made U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal partly by observing that the assessee had two bank accounts, one with Axis bank and another with Malviya Urban Cooperative Bank, Jaipur. He analysed the cash withdrawals from both counts on date wise and finally he confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposited and addition of Rs. 64,770/- on account of opening cash in hand. Regarding addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 12,02,500/-, the learned CIT(A) had confirmed the total addition by giving detail finding on pag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Rs. 19 lacs against which the assessee had claimed expensed under the head salary at Rs. 6,58,500/-, wages at Rs. 3,36,000/- and conveyance at Rs. 78,753/- respectively. The learned Assessing Officer observed that as per information available on the return, the assessee was mainly doing job work. The total expenses debited in the P&L account at Rs. 10,73,253/-, which was found excessive, not supported with documents/evidences, therefore, he disallowed lump sum amount @ 20% at Rs. 2,14,650/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had confirmed the addition by observing that the assessee had been provided sufficient opportunity to produce the books of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, he rejected the books, which was found to be manipulated and fabricated document. There was no copy of agreement for paying rent and rent receipt, had not been produced before him even name of the land lord of tenanted property had not provided to him. The appellant had not furnished the vouchers for payment of Rs. 3,36,000/- in cash to Shri Harkesh Meena from whom Innova car was taken on rent. The log book and details of travelling from Jaipur to Bikaner and subsequent visits to village Chadwal and Karmiser had not been submitted. There was no reason to pay the salary in cash for Rs. 6,58,500/-. It is also not clear from the assessee that salary claimed for employees were employed for full time or p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
