9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opening cash balance - income from undisclosed sources - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is evident from the records that the assessee was not having a bank account and therefore the assessee had explained the reason to keep cash at home. The assessee's cash flow statement reveals that the had a balance of ₹ 3,62,155/- as on 01.04.2000, which is the same amount reflected as his closing balance on 31.03.2000. Since this amount of ₹ 3,62,155/- was related to the Assessment Year 2000-01, the same could not have been taxed for the relevant Assessment Year under consideration i.e., 2001-02. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) to delete the said addition of ₹ 3,62,155/- on account of opening cash balance as on 01.04.2000. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3607/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2014 - SHRI G. D. AGARWAL AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri S. N. Bhatia, Sr. DR For The Respondent : None ORDER PER A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 31.03.2010 for the Assessment Year 2001-02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r seized from the premises of the assessee contained various entries of amounts and in the course of hearing the assessee was asked to explain the credit balance of ₹ 25,56,316/- as on 31.03.2001. The interest up to this period accruing to the assessee amounted to ₹ 5,48,900/- and since the incriminating paper was found from the premises of the assessee, the same has to be taken to be correct in terms of its contents as per provision contained in section 132(4A) of the Act. Therefore, according to the ld DR the ld CIT(A) erred in accepting the argument of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has not established that interest of ₹ 5,48,900/- had accrued to the assessee. 7. The ld AR on the other hand stated that the department?s search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried on 28.07.2006 at the residents of the assessee and the assessee had properly complied with the notice forwarded u/s 153A of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee on being asked to file the consolidated summarized cash flow statement reflecting therein all cash entries/ transactions year wise had also been filed before the AO. The ld AR also clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en no amount could be added as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The AR also pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not established and proved that the principal amount of ₹ 21,56,316/- belong to the assessee as is evident from the assessment order itself. It was contended by the ld AR that when the principal amount of ₹ 21,56,316/- has not been found to be that of the assessee, how can the interest accrued on it can be taxed on his hands. Therefore according to him there is no question of adding interest ₹ 5,48,900/- in the hand of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2001-02 which related to two Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 as per the seized slip. According to the AR it was a waste paper and it was an old paper which was written by somebody 8 years back and did not have any further details written on it and he also pointed out that percentage of interest of ₹ 5,48,900/- in relation to an amount of ₹ 6,27,000/- comes to approx. 87.54% which is next to impossible. Therefore, according to the ld AR, firstly, the paper seized at the time of search was not at all relating to the assessee and secondly, the amount was not found in the book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee filed Nil return on 25.08.2008. In respect to cash, a cash flow statement was filed by the assessee reflecting closing cash at hand as on 31.03.2000 as ₹ 3,62,155/-. This amount was taken as opening cash at hand for this relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the said statement and therefore the amount was treated as income and addition was made according to the income of the assessee. 13. Aggrieved by the said addition the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who by the impugned order deleted the same. 14. Aggrieved by the said deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the revenue is before us. 15. The ld DR submitted that during search the assessee was found in possession of cash to the tune of ₹ 5,89,000/-. This amount was sought to be expenditure with reference to cash flow statement. This statement is not in the nature of cash book and therefore it does not represent contemporaneous record for explaining cash found in the course of search. Nonetheless, the Assessing Officer added only an amount of ₹ 3,62,155/-. According to the ld DR, the ld CIT(A) wrongly relied on the cash flow statement to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
