9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent by: Shri O. P. Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM: The appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, arise from order of the CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad dated 18.10.2016, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. All the ground of appeal of the assessee are interconnected to the issue of addition of ₹ 10,84,400/- on unexplained 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 ₹ 10,84,400/- was IT(SS)A No. 46/Ahd/2017 [Raghunath Prasad found from premises 12, Chandralok Colony Aliganj, Lucknow out of which ₹ 10,00,000/-was seized. In addition above further cash of ₹ 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not in the opinion of the AO, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that assessee was found possessing unaccounted cash in physical form as well as deposited in the books and bank accounts. It was for the assessee to explain source of the cash as well as genuineness of the transaction. It was also for the assessee to prove creditworthiness of the persons who have given her the cash. The assessee has alleged that she had received cash as imprest deposit from M/s. Technosys Technology. This stand of the assessee has elaborately examined by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. CIT(A) doubted the genuineness of the transaction. At the cost of repetition we would like to reiterate some part of the CIT(A)'s finding:- 5.12.3. I have perused the relevant documents, and have heard the Ld. AR at length. Additionally I had called for the audited accounts of the Company concerned to verify the general availability of cash with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t filed form 26AS to substantiate that even TDS is made by M/s Technosys on contract payments and salaries. This, again, in my opinion, is 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 ₹ 20000/-, the appellant's day-to-day cash-book shows all 5 receipts of more amounts, highest being ₹ 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 and before me. In view of these facts, I am of the considered opinion that the genuineness of receipt of imprest cash of Rs, 4.5 lacs during FY 09-10 and further implied receipts of ₹ 7,71,060/- as business receipts allegedly from M/s Technosys was rightly doubted and disbelieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no controversy with regard to fact of employment and the receipt of salary in cash. The AO has also not commented adversely. Thus, the salary receipt in cash shall remain available to the appellant to explain the deposit/availability of cash. 26. It is pertinent to observe that Shri Rajiv Agarwal and Rohit Gupta are the witness of the assessee. It was for the assessee to produce them before the AO. And the Ld. CIT(A) has observed rightlythat assessee could collect cash from different closely related enterprises but could not persuade the relevant person who were her witnesses to appear before the AO for examination is highly improbable rather it suggests that assessee does not went to produce them are trying to mislead the AO by asking him to use his powers u/s. 131(1). The first onus is upon the assessee to fulfil the conditions provided u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act up to a reliable degree, only thereafter, the AO would rebut but here the assessee herself has failed to demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction as well as creditworthiness of alleged creditors. In this regard the relevant part of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
