9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained cash from during the course of search. Therefore, for the sake of convenience the same is adjudicated together by this common order. 3. The fact in brief is that the such action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in group cases of Nessa Group on 08.09.2010 and cash of Rs. 10,84,400/- was IT(SS)A No. 46/Ahd/2017 [Raghunath Prasad found from premises 12, Chandralok Colony Aliganj, Lucknow out of which Rs. 10,00,000/-was seized. In addition above further cash of Rs. 1,22,500/- was found from the locker No. 277 maintained in Canara Bank, Mahanagar Branch, Lucknow. The assessee has explained that above mentioned cash belonged to the Technosys Services Pvt. Ltd. which had advanced this cash to him as imprest cash on behalf of Technosys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) has observed rightly that assessee could collect cash from IT(SS)A No. 46/Ahd/2017 [Raghunath Prasad different closely related enterprises but could not persuade the relevant person who were is witnesses to appear before the AO for examination is highly improbable rather it suggest that assessee does not want produce them are trying to mislead the AO by asking him to use his power u/s. 131(1) of the Act. The relevant part of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the group case Smt. Sarita Group is reproduced as under:- "We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act contemplate that where any sum is found credite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 8,10,000/- during F.Y. 11-12 all in cash and in installments of less than Rs, 20,000/- towards alleged mid-day meal project execution as business receipts, for which also the certificate from the same lead CAs Rajiv Priyanka & Associates has been filed. As against this, the cash-book reproduced by the AO on page 11 of his order does not show any such gross receipts and only shows net business income of Rs. 2,06,954 (for the whole year) matching with the income in the return of Income. The day-to-day cash book filed as additional evidence, on the other hand, shows receipt of Rs. 8,59,482/- (7,71,060/- before the day of the search) on only 8 (5 before search) days i.e. on 28/4/2010, 31/5/2010, 30/6/2010, 31/7/2010 and 31/8/2010. Needless t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an attempt to establish a fact not convincingly. If in fact the gross-receipt, unspent, remained with the appellant, why was the same not shown as received and retained upto the date of search and spent subsequent to search to the AO? Does TDS paid into Government Account after the search explain the receipt and retention till the date of search? Why while TDS certificate and company's confirmation show small payments below Rs. 20000/-, the appellant's day-to-day cash-book shows all 5 receipts of more amounts, highest being Rs. 3.73 lacs? Why oral evidences of Shri Rohit Gupta and Shri Rajesh Aggrawal as called for by the AO still not produced? 5.12.4 There is no explanation also for mismatch between strong plea before the AO a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of this particular receipt.' Moreover, there is an attempt to explain additional cash receipt in day-to-day cash book (Rs. 7,71,060/-) by covering it up under withdrawals from IOB which were in fact subsequent to the date of the search and therefore not available to explain the cash on the day of the search. Therefore, I also hold that the onus of establishing the genuineness of the of receipts totaling to Rs. 12,21,060/-impliedly claimed through cash-book, (upto the date of search) has IT(SS)A No. 46/Ahd/2017 [Raghunath Prasad not been successfully discharged by the appellant, and therefore, the action of the ld. AO in disbelieving the alleged imprest cash receipts and other implied cash receipts totaling to Rs. 12,21,060/- fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard the relevant part of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- "Noteworthy in this factual background is also the further fact that the appellant has not attempted to improve her case before me also by explaining and evidencing in detail the circumstances under which the fact and quantum of imprest cash/ "business receipts" was considered necessary by the appellant and the employer, what agreement/arrangements were made with M/s Technosys, how and who brought the cash from Lucknow to Ahmedabad from time to time, why not only the appellant but even M/s Technosys considered it necessary for repeated transfer of cash when the same was not being spent, how imprest cash remained un-reclaimed by M/s Technosys till 31/3/13 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
