9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee could not furnish any evidence to support the discrepancies of ₹ 2,72,484/- being the receipts on account salary/ professional receipts. We find the summon issued by the AO to the company was returned back unserved with the remark company left . Similarly the assessee also could not establish the nature, source and genuineness of the cash deposits in the bank account amounting to ₹ 8,43,000/-. The mere statement that he was running an imprest account for his employer and withdrawing money from this account to meet the required expenses and re-depositing the same as and when required for the business purposes was not substantiated with supporting details. Assessee also could not substantiate the non disclosure of such interest on savings bank account and interest on income tax refund. So far as the addition on account of long term capital gain and considering submission that despite enquiry conducted by the AO and obtaining confirmation from the society that assessee has sold a flat through registered sale deed dated 04.05.2011 to Mrs. Suvida Singh for consideration of ₹ 35 lacs, the AO wrongly determined the long term capital gain in the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r / (Filer Name Nature of Transaction Income TDS 1 192B Plug Power Energy India Pvt Ltd Salary 14,95,034 4,32,574 2 194J Plug Power Energy India Pvt Ltd Professional Services 11,66,665 1,16,666 3 1.94C Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd Contract Receipts 31,857 637 4 194C Reliance Infratel Ltd Contract Receipts 867 17 Total 26,94,423 5,49,894 4. On being questioned by the AO to reconcile the receipt shown in the TDS certificates/ Form 26 AS with the income declared in the return of income under different heads, the assessee filed the following reconciliation:- Sr No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 8,43,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act being cash deposited in the bank account maintained with HDFC and ICICI Bank. The AO similarly made addition of ₹ 35,137/- being interest on IT refund and ₹ 23,705/- being interest on savings bank account. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee ₹ 60,60,724/-. After deducting an amount of ₹ 1 lakh under chapter VI-A, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at ₹ 59,67,724/-. 5.1 In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- Observation : I have carefully considered the written submission of the appellant and also the contents of the assessment order and perused the relevant material available on record. After having carefully considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, my conclusions on the issues raised in the grounds of appeal are as under: - under the head professional and other receipts. While making above addition the AQ has worked out the above amount of ₹ 9,38,4977- which is- given as under: Part A Particulars - Amount (Rs.) Income, from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the addition of sum of ₹ 4,66,666/- is upheld. c. Addition of ₹ 22.71.884/- on a/o of discrepancy in salary /professional receipts: During the assessment proceedings it came to AO s notice that there were large number of cash entries appearing in assessee s bank account which the assesses was specifically asked to explain the nature, source and genuineness of the cash credits. In this regard, the assessee has contended that the .assessee is working as Project Engineer in M/s Plug Power Energy. India Ltd. on remote site, not having banking facility where the assessee is supposed to incur various expenses on behalf of the employer company which were lateron reimbursed for which they are sending bills to the company. With the above contention it has been strongly, pleaded by the appellant that these payments being reimbursement of expenditure should not be treated as income ip the hands of the assessee. In this regard, the appellant was asked to substantiate his above claim with the help of relevant evidence which the assessee has failed to discharge and to that extent I find that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to explain the nature and so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revised return which is not the case in appeal in hand. Moreover, in the case In hand; it is visible that the appellant has claimed exemption only after the enquiries were initiated by the AO. Taking all the above into consideration exemption u/s 54 claimed by the appellant by way of letter during the assessment proceedings is disallowed and accordingly addition of ₹ 12,88,927/- made on account of disallowance of exemption u/s 54 of the Act is upheld. d. Bank interest : During the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished all the bank accounts held by him during the year under consideration and filed copy of bank statement on which the assessee has earned interest income as below: Sr.No. Name of the bank Account number Date Interest T . HDFC Bank 00031050202618 30.09.2010 981 2 HDFC Bank 000310502Q2618 31.03:2010 1,664 3 ICIGI Bank 005101000087 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose purpose and re-depositing the same as and when required for business purpose. In this regard, the assessee has filed details of deposits and withdrawals during the remand proceedings but he failed to furnish the details of all those bank account from which he withdraw the cash and also the bank to which the funds were re-deposited. In this regard, the assessee was specifically asked to explain the numerous, cash deposits but despite having been given sufficient opportunity he failed to explain the same, it is a well established law that in the case of cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act, the primary onus lies on the assessee to establish the nature, source genuineness of the cash transaction. However, from the material available on record, I find that the appellant has not bother to establish the nature, source and genuineness of above transaction. As such in the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee s side, I find AO fully justified in treating the impugned cash credit of ₹ 8,43,000/- as undisclosed money in the hands of the assessee u/s. 68 of the IT Act. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esulted in double addition. It is also his submission that the amount of ₹ 22,71,884/- was on account of reimbursement of expenses by the employer company which were transferred to his account maintained with ICICI Bank in order to meet the site expenses. Similarly it is also his submission that the amount of ₹ 8,43,000/- added by the AO was based on wrong and incorrect appreciation of facts. It is also his submission that the assessee has filed the statement giving cash withdrawn and deposited in the paper book to substantiate the sources of the same which were completely ignored by the lower authorities. 8. So far as the addition of ₹ 12,88,927/- on account of long term capital gain is concerned, it is his submission that despite enquiry conducted by the AO and obtaining confirmation from the society that assessee has sold a flat through registered sale deed dated 04.05.2011 to Mrs. Suvida Singh for consideration of ₹ 35 lacs, the AO wrongly determined the long term capital gain of ₹ 12,68,927/-. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
