9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheque of ₹ 5 lac, which though did not materialize. However, no details of this payment/investment are provided - to whom was the cheque issued/to be issued, and for what purpose. Then, again, why was the amount not refunded back when the transaction did not materialize? Why, for all we know, the amount is outstanding for payment even to date - so much for the temporary loans. As regards the cash deposit of ₹ 25,000/-, the same has been explained as sourced from the cash withdrawal during the current year. The same only implies a reduction in the cash withdrawal for the year by ₹ 25,000/-. The least that the assessee is therefore required to state is the cash withdrawal for the year, i.e., upto 27.1.2008. The cash with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orized Representative (AR), the assessee's counsel, on enquiry, would contend non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2), so that by implication no notice there-under stood issued. As for the basis of this claim; no such objection having been raised before either the assessing authority or the first appellate authority, he would draw attention to the assessment order, which states of notice u/s. 143(2) being issued on 08.5.2009 (refer para 1 of the assessment order). How could this be a valid notice when the return of income itself was furnished only on 09.7.2009, he asseverated. The date of the notice, as it would appear, is a typing mistake. To ascertain the facts, therefore, the assessment record was called for vide order sheet entry dated 03.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of account, so that no addition u/s.68, as effected, could be made. Further, on the merits of the addition, i.e., on the factual aspect, it was submitted that the assessee had cash withdrawal of ₹ 7.93 lacs and ₹ 2.20 lacs for the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively, which would justify an opening cash in hand of ₹ 3.50 lacs. The balance ₹ 1.5 lacs is by way of temporary loans from friends and relatives, from whom confirmations stands submitted. The cash deposit on 28.1.2008 (of ₹ 25,000/-) is from the cash withdrawal from the bank during the current year. 6. The parties have been heard, and the material on record perused. With regard to the legal objection of section 68 being not applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of law, it could matter little if he does not refer to the appropriate provision; the provisions of section 68 and sections 69/69A being even otherwise cognate provisions. The assessee's principal contention on merits is of the same being deposited from cash-in-hand. The same has not been accepted by the Revenue as, in that case, there was no need for him to borrow further cash from friends and relatives. Further, confirmation/s itself would not prove a credit, and there is no substantiation of the capacity of the creditors. Admittedly, no books of account are maintained. The assessee has nowhere submitted a cash flow statement for the relevant years. The cash-in-hand would, therefore, have to be justified in terms of the cash with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no explanation for cash received from friends and relatives when the assessee himself has surplus cash of ₹ 3.50 lacs. It is stated that the same is to cover the short-fall to honour a cheque of ₹ 5 lac, which though did not materialize. However, no details of this payment/investment are provided - to whom was the cheque issued/to be issued, and for what purpose. Then, again, why was the amount not refunded back when the transaction did not materialize? Why, for all we know, the amount is outstanding for payment even to date - so much for the temporary loans. As regards the cash deposit of ₹ 25,000/-, the same has been explained as sourced from the cash withdrawal during the current year. The same only implies a red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
