9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition made by learned Assessing of Rs. 1,71,719/- on account of interest income from bank guarantee. 5. The appellant craves leaves to amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the same are heard and disposed off. 6. It is prayed that the addition shall kindly be deleted. 3. Ground No. 1, 5 and 6 are general in nature, so do not require any comment on our part. 4. Vide Ground No. 2 the grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of addition made by the A.O. by restricting the deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') to 25 % instead of 100% claimed by the assessee. 5. The facts related to this issue in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 26/09/2015 declaring an income of Rs. 63,050/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 2,32,74,367/- under section 80IC of the Act. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, later on the case was selected for scrutiny. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. noticed that the assessee started claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Act from the A.Y. 2008-09 and claimed 100% deduction for five years. He further observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legislature, we see no reason as to why 100% deduction of the profits and gains be not allowed to even those units who had availed this deduction on setting up of a new unit and have now invested huge amount with substantial expansion of those units." 12. We therefore by keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the aforesaid referred to order, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to allow the claim of the Assessee for deduction under section 80IC of the Act. 13. Ground No. 3 relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs. 5,75,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained cash deposit. 14. The facts related to this issue in brief are that the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that as per the ITS information available with the Department the assessee had deposited cash as per following details: Name of the Account holder Name of the Bank Date of deposit Amount Subash Chand and Santosh Khanna Punjab National Bank, CO, Hamirpur 08/05/2014 2,00,000/- -do- -do- 08/11/2014 3,75,000/- Subash Chand UCO Bank, ZO, Solan 13/11/2014 2,00,000/- He asked the assessee to file the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the cash withdrawal made by the assesse's wife amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- on 10.09.2014. The cash deposit made on 08.11.2014was out of cash withdrawal made earlier and out of rental income received in cash. Hence the cash deposits were made in the Bank account jointly held by the assesse and his wife out of old savings and rental income of the assesses wife. The Learned Assessing officer erred in making the addition of cash deposit made and termed the same as unexplained. The copy of Income Tax Return of the assesse's wife Mrs. Santosh Khanna along with computation for the Assessment year 2014-15 & 2015-16 depicting the sources of income has been enclosed herewith for your ready reference. Also, the copy of bank account statement held jointly by the assesse and his wife has been enclosed herewith for your ready reference. Since the addition was made without appreciating the above facts and without giving assesse an opportunity to produce the documents in support of his claim. Considering the above submissions made and additional documents produced under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I hereby request you consider my submission submitted above and delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cash of previous years is devoid of merit both on the principal of human probabilities and also on account of being not supported by any documentary evidence. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lalchand Tirath Ram 225 ITR 675 has observed that mere offering explanation is not sufficient - explanation is to be substantiated by cogent and reliable evidences. Therefore, the additional evidence is also not sufficient in merits to hold the contention of the assessee. To conclude, it is submitted that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee to your good self is not acceptable both in regard to admissibility as well as merits." 15.2 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the A.O. observed that the assessee had not furnished any documentary evidence vis; the rent receipt, copy of bank statement to prove that the impugned cash deposits were made out of previous year rent receipt and cash withdrawn earlier. He further observed that the onus to prove the source of the impugned cash deposit was on the assessee but he had failed to discharge his onus on the said front. Ld. CIT(A) accordingly confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income for the whole year was shown at Rs. 2,16,000 i.e Rs. 18,000/- per month, therefore the rental income of the assessee's wife from April 2014 to October 2014 i.e; for the seven years came to Rs. 1,26,000/- therefore at the most a deposit of Rs. 1,25,000/- may be considered as a part of the deposits amounting to Rs. 3,75,000/- on 08/11/2014. We, therefore by considering the totality of the facts are of the view that the wife of the assessee was having a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- ( Rs. 2,00,000/- + Rs. 1,25,000/-) which could have been a part of the deposit of Rs. 3,75,000/-. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 3,25,000/- is deleted and the remaining addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. 5,75,000 - Rs. 3,25,000) is sustained. 21. As regards to the Ground No. 4 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has the instructions not to press this ground considering the smallness of the amount involved and gave in writing as under: " Ground No. 4 is not pressed and accepted the Pr. CIT order" Sd/- Rachit Goyal 25/02/2020 22. In view of the above, ground no. 4 is dismissed as not pressed. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
