9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the CIT(A) on this count. Retention of addition of ₹ 94,500 made by the AO, the CIT(A) has rightly held that u/s. 68 addition can only be made when the assessee fails to explain the cash credit in the books of account maintained by the assessee and in this case the assessee has failed to explain the cash credit for an amount of ₹ 94,500. Hence, the same has been confirmed by the CIT(A) and we see no reason to hold a different view. - ITA No. 703/Hyd/2014. C.O. No. 28/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri Kiran Katta For the Respondent : Sri Pavan Kumar Chakrapani ORDER Per Asha Vijayaraghavan, J. M. The appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t available before the Assessing Officer to pass ex-parte order and the same were referred to Assessing Officer for necessary verification and report. 3. The Assessing Officer in his remand report observed that the assessee could not produce Sri Sanjeeva Reddy for examination, who was required to be examined as to the nature of transactions and the circumstances under which the cash was deposited into bank account. The AO also observed that the assessee could not produce any other evidence in proof of executing the contract works other than the sub contract agreement. The AO held that the claim of the sub contract agreement was a make believe transaction as no TDS were made on payments for sub contract works. 4. In reply to the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught on record of the assessee in acting as sub contractor vide agreement dt. 25.1.2008 with Mr V Sanjeeva Reddy is genuine and for the year under reference the total sub contract receipts are shown at ₹ 1,24,08,000. It was also observed by CIT(A) that the contract receipts shown to have included ₹ 33,58,000 paid in cash by the contractor into the bank account of the assessee which has been confirmed by Mr Sanjeeva Reddy, subsequently. However, on the insistence of the AO for the presence of Mr. Sanjeeva Reddy in his office and in absence of coming in person and for non deduction of TDS on such cash remittances of contract amounts, the AO treated the said cash deposits into bank account, as unexplained. The CIT(A) pointed out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounts from the contractor for the year as against the total cash deposits of ₹ 34,52,500 into bank account, thus leaving a balance of ₹ 94,500 for which the assessee was not able to offer any explanation either in the remand proceedings or appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of treating cash deposits to the extent of ₹ 94,500 as against ₹ 34.52,500/- made by the AO in the assessment order. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the addition of ₹ 33,58,000 towards cash deposit into bank account. Aggrieved the assessee and Department are on appeal before us. 7. The assessee has filed cross objections which are as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urged above. 7. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the Cross Objection, your Respondent / Cross Objector humbly pray that the Cross Objection may be allowed in the interest of equity and justice. 8. Grounds of appeal by the department are as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law, or both. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) is giving relief to the assessee individual did not appreciate that he had not fully discharged the onus of establishing the source of the alleged cash deposit in his savings account. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) accepted the version of the assessee-individual in stating that he was a subcontractor even where the basic requirement of law, namely, the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
