9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal. Shri S. Jhajharia, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Satyajit Mondal, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of Revenue. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee per its appeal are as under:- "1. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions of Rs. 9,99,900/-, Rs. 89,600/- and Rs. 10,19,000/-, made u/s. 68 of the IT Act, holding that 'Çhaitali'& 'Rajshree' were one and the same person whereas in fact, the Balance Sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2006 has separate, independent entries in the names of 'Chaitali'& 'Rajshree'. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,50,000/- being undisclosed investment by failing appreciate that the advance for land to the same extent was not reflected in the asset side of the balance sheet. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,01,631/- being undisclosed income in view of the categorical finding given by the AO in the remand report that the said amount, paid to M/s RDB & Co. was not reflected n the books of account of the assessee. 4. That the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,22,427/-, being amount received purportedly fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee shifted to Mumbai after her marriage but the accounts were maintained in Kolkata. The accountant for the easy reference of the cash availability has recorded the same in different names which created this confusion. Now the assessee has started recording the cash balance under the single head as evident from the balance sheet for the year ended 31st March 2007. The assessee, in support of her claim, has also submitted Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay dated 20/06/1994 wherein the correction in the name of the assessee was made from 'Chaitali' to 'Rajshree'. The assessee also submitted the cash flow statement reflecting all the entries of cash deposits. Accordingly, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under:- "... ...On careful consideration of the facts, I am of the opinion that by making such observations, it cannot be denied that the appellant was having opening cash balance as on 1.4.2006 at Rs. 17,10,500/-. If, the said cash was appearing in different heads in the balance-sheet and not under one head as cash in hand', does it mean that the appellant was not having the opening cash balance as explained by he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, 5 and 7 are allowed." Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Before us ld. DR submitted that identity of Chaitali is to be verified and therefore it should be restored before AO for further verification and he vehemently relied on the order of AO. On the other hand, Ld. AR before us filed a paper book which is running pages from 1 to 65 and submitted that the name "Chaitali" is a nick name of assessee. Therefore, no cash was received from the third party and the cash shown in the books of account was belonging to assessee only. Ld. AR further supported of the said claim the birth certificate of daughter of assessee where the correction in the name of assessee was carried out said birth certificate is placed on page 22 of the paper book. Ld. AR very much relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that the opening balance of cash-in-hand for Rs. 16 lakhs as reflected in the previous year's balance-sheet i.e. 31-03-2006 has been accepted by the Department. Before us Ld. DR has not brought out anything contrary about the opening balance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or impact in the accounts on the revenue but AO has rightly reiterated that Rs. 54.41 lakh was shown as advance from associates in the balance-sheet at stood on 31.03.2007. In the list of such advance from associates, the advance from Manuvir Agarwal for Rs. 22.50 lakh was a fresh deposit which never appeared in the balance sheet as stood on 3.103.2006. Further assessee contended that said sum of Rs. 3.50 lakh could easily be verified from cash book and bank book as were submitted before AO while framing assessment order where assessee categorically stated that said sum of Rs. 3.50 lakh was neither refunded nor added with the fresh deposit of the year received from Shri Manuvir Agarwal. Considering the submissions and perused the assessment order together with the remand report submitted by AO, Ld. CIT(A) opined that as per the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2006 assessee had advanced sum of Rs. 17.75 lakh to seven different persons against the purchase of land but in balance sheet as stood on 31.03.2007 the said sum of advance was reflected at Rs. 14.25 lakh thus the reduction of Rs. 3.50 lakh on the asset side of the balance-sheet as on 31.03.2007. Accordingly Ld CIT(A) deleted the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Shri Manuvir Agarwal. We further find that it was a clerical error having no impact on the profitability of the assessee. As such, we find that there is no undisclosed investment on account of adjustment of liability with the amount of advances. Before us, Ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the advance argument of Ld. AR in this regard. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same. This ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 14. Third issue raised by Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for the Rs. 13,01,631/- on account of undisclosed income. The assessee during the year has made the payments to M/s RDB & Co. (HUF) through banking channel on different dates as detailed under:- "(iii)(c) Payments by transfer of Rs. 2,75,000/- vide cheque number 104726 of UCO bank on 12.6.2006, Rs. 8,01,631/- on 30.8.2006 vide cheque number 104372, Rs. 50,000/- on 26.3.2007 vide cheque number 104736 and Rw.1,75,000/- on 31.3.2007 vide cheque number 104739 were made to CA- 10288 being the account maintained by RDB & Co.(HUF) was not reflected in the loan confirmation of account between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant had also given sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- on 10/6/06 and Rs. 8,01,631/- on 29/8/06 to R.D.B.& Co. HUF. In this manner, the total of debit side also became Rs. 20,76,631/- and the loan account which was appearing in the balance-sheet as on 31/3/06 was squared off. The confirmation of this account was filed before the AO which, according to him, was filed by the appellant after detection of entries of payment by the appellant to the R.D.B.& Co. HUF. As mentioned above, the old loan account was square off, but during the year, a new account by the name R.D.B &Co. HUF (Housing Loan) was opened wherein the sum of Rs. 10 lakh was transferred from the old loan account and the appellant has further received sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 20th April, 06 and sum of Rs. 5 lakhi on 6/1/07. Further, the amount of interest on housing loan of Rs. 1,21,808/- was also added to the loan amount and as on 31/3/07, the amount of housing loan was Rs. 18,71,808/- which is duly reflected in the balance-sheet as on 31/3/07.. Thus, I am of the opinion that the AO has failed to appreciate the two accounts maintained by the appellant and the two loan confirmations filed during the course of assessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the current year through banking channel. We further find all the repayment of loan and accepting the fresh loan has been made through banking channel. There was certain other movement of cash through banking channel on personal account of assessee also this was not shown in the loan statement of the party as it was adjusted with the capital account of assessee. The Ld. AR in support of its claim has placed the confirmation from RDB & Co. (HUF) which are placed on pages 25 to 28 of the paper book. Before us Ld. DR failed to bring anything contrary to the confirmation filed by Ld. AR. In view of above facts and circumstances in the present case, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). This ground of Revenue is dismissed. 18. Fourth issue raised by Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for the Rs. 16,22,427/- on account of undisclosed income. 19. The assessee has received sum of Rs. 16,22,427/- on account of sale of shares of several companies. The said sum was received from M/s Bakliwal Financial Services who is the share broker of the assessee. However the AO during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has used the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d shares through said broker and received the sale proceeds of Rs. 16,22,339/-. Under the circumstances, it is to be held that the sum of Rs. 16,22,427/- was received by the appellant as sale proceeds of the shares and it was not appellant's income from undisclosed sources as held by the AO. He is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 16,22,427/-. The ground no. 8 is allowed." Being aggrieved by this order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us. 21. Before us ld. DR submitted that the sale proceed was received from the broker for an amount of Rs. 1,00,112/- therefore the amount received from the broker for Rs. 16,22,427/- does not represent the sale of shares. Hence, the cheque received for Rs. 16,22,427/- from any other source which have not been disclosed by assessee. Ld. DR fairly conceded that the matter should be restored back to the file of AO for verification. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that in the assessment order, AO has mentioned that copy of ledger accounts of Bakliwal Financial Services was furnished and observed by him that sale of number of shares were mentioned which aggregated to Rs. 16.22 lakhs Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that in the sale register nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
