9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in :- i) Deleting the addition of ₹ 1,13,000/- in the name of Sh. Jai Narayan ₹ 1,55,000/- in the name of Sh. Roshan Lal and without name made by the AO on account of bogus cash credits, though the AO has rightly made the said addition as the assessee has failed to discharge his onus. ii) Directing the AO to charge interest @ 1% instead of 2% u/s 158BFA though the AO has rightly charged the interest @ 2% as provided in the Income-tax Act, 1961 for late filing of return. 3. The first issue for consideration relates to deleting the addition of ₹ 1,13,000/- in the name of Shri Jai Narayan and ₹ 1,55,000/- in the name of Shri Roshan Lal. The facts of the case stated in br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Shri Roshan Lal pertaining to assessment year 1998-99 and added these amounts to the income of the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer did not allow telescoping of the peak credits in the books of account with that of peak of Dasti Bahi. 4. Before CIT (A), it was submitted by the assessee that in the scheme of block assessment there was no scope for adding the entries, whether verifiable or not, which were found recorded in the regular books of account. At the best the AO should have reopened the regular assessment and should have made the addition in the relevant assessment year and not in the block period. The Ld. CIT (A) noted that the AO had not allowed the benefit of telescoping of the amount of cash credits against the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Bahi for assessment year 1998-99 was taken as on 15.01.1998. When the peak of Dasti Bahi was taken on 15.01.1998 and the date of transactions were between 16.1.98 and 13.02.98, then presumption was in favour of the assessee that the amounts were advanced out of peak available in the Dasti Bahi as on 15.1.98. Therefore, there was no scope for making any addition on account of these transactions. Ld. CIT (A), therefore, allowed the telescoping of the amount of ₹ 2,68,000/- against peak of Dasti Bahi. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the AO had made addition of ₹ 1,13,000/- in the name of Shri Jai Narayan and ₹ 1,55, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies recorded in regular books of account while determining the undisclosed income of the assessee, the entries recorded in the regular books of account have to be telescoped with entries recorded in the Dasti Bahi . Ld. CIT (A), therefore, is justified in allowing the telescoping of the addition made on the basis of peak credits of the entries recorded in the regular books of account against the peak of credits found recorded in Dasti Bahi . In our considered opinion, ld. CIT (A) is justified in telescoping the amount in the name of Shri Jai Narayan and Shri Roshan Lal to the extent of ₹ 2,68,000/-. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT (A) deleting the addition. 6. The next issue for considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elates to late submission of return of income. W.e.f. 8.9.2003, the rate of interest on delayed return of income is to be charged @ 1% of the tax on undisclosed income. W.e.f. 1.6.2001, the rate of interest for delayed return of income was 1 % of tax on undisclosed income. During the period 1.1.97 to 31st May, 2001 the rate of interest was 2%. Therefore, rate of interest applicable in the case of the assessee is 2% and not 1%. In this case, search and seizure operation was carried out on 29th July, 1997. The AO issued notice u/s 158 BC dated 17.7.2000 and the assessee filed return of income on 30th March, 2001 admitting the undisclosed income of ₹ 12,40,530/-. The interest u/s 158BFA (1) is chargeable in respect of delayed filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
