2007 (2) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Opponent(s) : None ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The following substantial questions of law are proposed for admission of this appeal. (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in sustaining addition to the extent of ₹ 33,000/- only out of addition of ₹ 2,49,261/- made on account of unexplained cash/undisclosed income? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,39,082/- made in respect of nongenuine expenses, when the assessee produced only the bills and could not produce the proprietors of the two concerns for verification of transaction? 3. The Tribunal has reproduced the discussion of the CIT (App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adverse circumstances to disbelieve the version of the appellant regarding the further cash sales of gold. Apart from what has been mentioned earlier in this order, the fact that the appellant could not explain the deficit of cash of ₹ 33,000/-. I, therefore, hold that cash of ₹ 2,49,261/- represents unexplained cash which represents the undisclosed income of the appellant. I am also not ready to accept the alternative contention of the appellant as this cash in any case represents the undisclosed income of the appellant. By resorting to the alternative contention, the appellant is merely trying to get only gross profit on the socalled sales to be brought to tax and this cannot be accepted. 4. Having considered the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T No. and payment through cheques, the addition cannot be made u/s. 69 or 69A in this section the addition can be made in following circumstances: i) When assessee had made investment which is not recorded in the books of accounts, or ii) The assessee offers no explanation or the explanation is not satisfactory 12. The following decisions cited by the learned AR are also in favour of the assessee; i) CIT Vs. MK Bros., 163 ITR 249 ii) Sagar Bose Vs. ITO 56 ITD 561 iii) SF Wadia Vs. ITO 19 ITD 306 13. In the light of the above discussion that we are of the considered view that the addition is not warranted. We accordingly delete the addition of ₹ 7,39,082/-. 6. Whether the cash credits entries are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X