9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri S.S. Deshpande, A.R. For the Respondent : Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT(DR) ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This bunch of 7 appeals filed by the assessee are against order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhopal dated 15.5.2018 pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. The identical grounds are raised except figures in all these appeals. All the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we take up the assessee s appeal in IT(SS)A No.89/Ind/2018 pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case of the assessee the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1 was not justified in confirming the addition of cash balance to the extent of ₹ 53,000/-. 2. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1 was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,20,000/- towards u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer stated that in view of the specific defects pointed out, he rejected the books of accounts furnished by the assessee since those are not complete and do not give a correct picture of the affairs of the assessee. The A.O. has noted in the assessment order that in the balance sheet as on 1.4.2003, cash in hand amounting to ₹ 53,000/- is shown whereas the cash in hand as per cash book as on 1.4.2003 is shown at ₹ 1,33,000/-. The A.O. rejected the cash book and was of the view that the assessee could not prove cash in hand of ₹ 1,33,000/-, the same was added u/s 69 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the A.R. submitted that the opening cash balance as on 1.4.2003 of ₹ 53,000/- was taken on an estimate basis as the assessee had withdrawn ₹ 55,000/- from his bank account. It was argued that opening cash balance as on 31.3.2003 was neither any unexplained investment/expense nor any unrecorded income and, therefore, no addition should have been made for the amount. It was pointed out that the A.O. has committed an error in taking the cash balance of ₹ 1,33,000/- as per cash book whereas in fact cash in hand as per cash book was onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no credit entry of cash which can be treated as unexplained. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the deposits in cash in his bank accounts stand explained and, hence, no addition on this account was called for. 5. With regard to house hold expenses, Ld. CIT(A) stated that it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not shown any amount of withdrawals for meeting his household expenses from his declared sources of income. As pointed out by the A.O., the assessee was required to incur expenses on electricity, water charges, maintenance of house, milk, vegetables and fruits, medicines, clothes attending social functions, expenditure on entertainment etc. The assessee has claimed his father and he himself were having agricultural income but the assessee had not furnished any evidence regarding the amount of income received from the alleged agricultural land owned by them. The assessee had also not given any figure of the amount of household expenses incurred by him and specific sources thereof. The assessee maintained a car which would require some expenditure on running and maintenance. The assessee has not proved the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts, we restrict the addition to the extent of 50%. Ground of the assessee is partly allowed. 11. Ground No.3 is general in nature which needs no separate adjudication. 12. Now we take up ITA No.90/Ind/2018 for the A.Y. 2005-06. In this appeal, ground No.1 raised by the assessee is identical to ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.89/Ind/2018 except figures, which was already adjudicated in para 10 for the same reasoning this ground is also partly allowed. The A.O. is hereby directed to delete the 50% addition made on account of low household expenses. 13. Ground No.2 of the assessee s appeal is general in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 14. Now we take up ITA No.91/Ind/2018 for the A.Y. 2006-07. In this appeal, ground No.1 raised by the assessee is identical to ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.89/Ind/2018 except figures, which was already adjudicated in para 10 for the same reasoning this ground is also partly allowed. The A.O. is hereby directed to delete the 50% addition made on account of low household expenses. 15. Ground No.2 of the assessee s appeal is general in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
