9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Anoop Kumar Singh, Senior DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by assessee emanate from the order of the CIT (Appeals)-XXII, New Delhi dated 06.05.2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of transport under the name of M/s. M.K. Co. Return of income was filed on 31.10.2007 disclosing income at ₹ 4,48,921/-. The assessee was having a loan account No.011500NC00000476 at PNB, Civil Lines, Delhi. The outstanding balance as on 01.04.2006, i.e. a first day of the financial year was of ₹ 27,95,067/-. The part of the loan was repaid during the relevant fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings shows introduction of cash of ₹ 8,55,000/- and withdrawal of cash of ₹ 16,30,352/- through the said current account. The capital account of the proprietor shows introduction of cash of ₹ 17,00,000/- and withdrawal of cash of ₹ 7,80,000/-. The cash withdrawals shown from these 2 accounts are tallied with the deposits in cash in the PNB home loan account. To give an example, repayment of home loan in cash of ₹ 7,00,000/- on 16-12-2006 has been explained as withdrawal from the business through his current account of ₹ 5,05,352/-and withdrawal through his capital account of ₹ 1,93,648/-, both on 14-12-2006. On 08-01-2007 a deposit of ₹ 14,20,029/- in the PNB home loan account, has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be lost sight of that the appellant sold a valuable property in G.K.-II, New Delhi on 10-1-2007 for a disclosed consideration of ₹ 54,50,000/-. The appellant failed to disclose the short term capital gain in the return of income filed. The deposits in cash in the PNB home loan account are in December 2006 and January 2007. As correctly argued by the assessing officer in his remand report, the claim of the current account and of the cash in hand on 1-4-2006 of ₹ 16,40,302/- has no basis. Though specifically asked, the appellant has not shown the source of cash in hand of ₹ 16,40,302/- as on 1-4-2006. I am constrained to agree with the assessing officer that the explanation offered during appellate proceedings are an aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue s appeal, the issue involved is of the total relief granted by this order was of ₹ 7,61,727/-. We find that the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹ 3 lacs. The appeal is filed on 14.07.2011 and as per the Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011, the revenue is not permitted to file appeal before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than ₹ 3.00 lakh. This appeal does not fall in any of the exceptions provided in the instruction No. 3/2011. The appeal of revenue is not maintainable in the instant case as the tax effect is less than ₹ 3 lacs. Accordingly, it is held that appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and dismissed in limine. 4. There is a delay in filing the cross objection by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the appellate proceedings are just an after-thought and the facts do not tally with the copy of accounts filed along with the return of income. The cash book of the assessee was found to have negative cash balance on many dates which also casts doubt about the veracity of the audit carried out of the assessee s accounts. The so-called withdrawals made in odd amounts through the current account and capital account on the same date also do not inspire confidence in the submissions of the assessee. In these circumstances, we are of the view that CIT (A) has rightly sustained the addition of ₹ 16,40,302/- which the assessee has miserably failed to prove. The assessee s claim that current account used for withdrawal and deposits in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
