9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk account. Restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. Thus hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 6032/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2021 - R. K. Panda, Member (A) For the Appellant : S. Krishnan, Advocate For the Respondents : Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR ORDER R.K. Panda, Member (A) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13th June 2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)- 16, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds raised by the assesses are as under:- 1. On the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment proceedings, the AO noted that assessee has made cash deposit of ₹ 7 lacs in the bank account maintained with HDFC bank. On being confronted by the AO, it was submitted that there was opening balance of ₹ 1,79,293/- in the bank account and also certain cheques in hand as on 31.3.2009 which were deposited in subsequent months. It was further submitted that an amount of ₹ 2,77,252/- was realized out of sale of closing stock. Further an amount of ₹ 2,74,319/- was received from sundry debtors. 2.3. However, the AO did not accept the arguments advanced by the assessee. He accepted an amount of ₹ 28,455/- as explained and made addition of ₹ 6,71,545/- to the total income of the assessee being unexp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 2,77,252/- was received on account of this sale. Also, ₹ 2,74,319/- was received from the debtors. However, in the absence of any primary evidence to substantiate this claim in the form of sale bills or confirmations of debtors, the AO did not accept the claim of the appellant and only allowed the appellant benefit of ₹ 28,455/- being cash in hand as submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings. The finding of the AO seems to be correct and I see no reason to interfere with the same considering that any claim unsubstantiated by evidence has no evidentiary value in a court of law or during the course of quasi-judicial proceedings. Before me the appellant further contended that the opening cash in hand as on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating evidence cannot prove the credibility of cash-in-hand figure of ₹ 6,82,206/-. The AR did attempt to produce sale bills of the A.Y 2010-11 but they cannot be considered as these evidences are clearly in the nature of self- serving documents that bespeak afterthought and have no credibility as they cannot be matched against the ITR filed reflecting the said sales or audited accounts. Here it is pertinent to observe that the assessee is not required to maintain any books of account u/s. 44AD and 44AE. However, taxpayers (as does the appellant who in his ITR filed in response to Section 148 has returned Nil income) who claim that their Income from business is lower than the presumed income calculated under section 44AE must maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has explained all these things, however, due to non filing of the return by the assessee for earlier years, the AO did not accept the source of cash deposits and made the addition which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is not maintaining regular books of accounts and was offering his income u/s. 44AF of the Act. He submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to explain the source of such cash deposit in the bank account. He accordingly, submitted in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate its case. 4. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
