9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank ₹ 1.175 lacs and expenses and drawings of ₹ 0.87 lacs. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any increase in cash in hand in the present year which stands unexplained. Regarding this contention of the learned DR of the revenue that the cash flow statement was not filed with income tax return filed before the date of search, we find that there is no such requirement that the assessee must file cash flow statement, balance sheet or copy of capital account with the return of income. Hence, on this basis, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. The A.O. could have asked the assessee to explain the opening cash as on 01.04.2003 ₹ 4.60 lacs and if he could find that the assessee is not able to explain th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 4,16,000/- reduced by C1T(A) to ₹ 3,70,000/- is based purely no disbelieving the explanation furnished by the assessee, which explanation has not been found to be false or untrue. 4. Because the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO substantially without appreciating the fact that the entire cash found at the time of search being duly explained and there being no material to disbelieve the same, the addition upheld be deleted. 5. Because the CIT(A) has not justified in part accepting the issue under reference and part rejecting the same. 6. Because the order of the CIT(A) is unjust, bad in law and void abinito. 2. Brief facts are that a search was carried out on 17/09/2008 and ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the addition confirmed by learned CIT(A) is sustainable. He also placed reliance on the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Satish Chandra Pandey in I.T.A. No.525/Lkw/2010 dated 30/03/2011. He submitted copy of the Tribunal order. 4. As against this, learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the order of learned CIT(A). he also submitted that before the date of search, no balance sheet or cash flow statement was submitted by the assessee along with the return of income filed by the assessee and therefore, all these cash flow statement starting from financial year 2003-04 to financial year 2008-09 submitted during the assessment proceedings of this year are self-serving documents and the same cannot be considered a basis to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no such requirement that the assessee must file cash flow statement, balance sheet or copy of capital account with the return of income. Hence, on this basis, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. The A.O. could have asked the assessee to explain the opening cash as on 01.04.2003 ₹ 4.60 lacs and if he could find that the assessee is not able to explain this opening cash on 01.04.2003, addition could have been made in A. Y. 2003 04 when the assessee is showing the cash for the first time but is not able to explain. The A.O. can do so now also if the law permits but in the present year, the addition made by him cannot be sustained in the facts of the present case. We delete the same. 6. In the result, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
