9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has failed to consider the wrong reasons recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer for issue of notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessment is likely to be quashed in the eyes of Law. 3) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2 has wrongly confirmed the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- alleged to have been made in cash payment without any evidence. The alleged original receipts of payment made h: cash are not available with the Department and Photo copies have been fraudly prepared by the complaint. The addition may kindly be deleted. 4) Any other ground of Appeal which may be taken before the hearing of the appeal with the permission of the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. From the aforesaid grounds, it would be clear that the main grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- made by the A.O. 4. The facts relating to this issue in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 25/11/2010 declaring an income of Rs. 8,31,590/-. Later on the A.O., on the basis of the information received from ADIT(Inv.), Patiala to the effect that the assessee had received cash payments of Rs. 17,00,000/- from M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mply with the enquiry letters and summons issued and served on him and that if assessee had not received cash of Rs. 17,00,000/- from M/s. Wembley Coop. H/B Society, he would have cooperated with investigation wing and furnished the requisite details/information as called for by investigation wing regarding the receipts of Rs. 17,00,000/-. Therefore non cooperative attitude of the assessee shows that he had received the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- from the said society. He further observed that the signatures of the assessee tallied with signatures marked by him on the order sheet and the other documents signed by him during the course of assessment proceedings. The A.O. did not accept this plea of the assessee that he had not received cash of Rs. 17,00,000/- from M/s. Wembley Coop. H/B Society and the receipts were not signed by him. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- was made. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: "The addition made on the basis of photocopy of evidence which is forged and fake one is totally unjustified and it is prayed to kindly delete it. The AO has no where confronted the assessee or has shown o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly audited by Inspector Audit. During appellate proceedings, it was inquired from the AO whether the original receipts of the alleged cash payments were available with the department. It was informed by the AO that only photocopies of the cash payments were available. It is therefore, undisputed that only photocopies of the receipts of cash payments of Rs. 64,30,000/- in two years are available with the Department. The issue for consideration therefore is whether such photocopy can be sufficient evidence to be the basis of inference of unaccounted transactions. 7.3.3 In view of the fact that clinching evidence in the form of receipt of cash payment by the assessee was available with the department and the assessee was confronted with this information, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash receipts during the relevant previous year. Ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * M/s. Moosa S Midha Vs. CIT 89 ITR 65 (SC) * Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) * C Basant Lal Company Vs. CIT 45 ITR 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter therefore the same may be admitted. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * C. Vasantlal And Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) * Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) * M/s. Moosa S Midha Vs. CIT 89 ITR 65 (SC) 8. In his rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR reiterated the observations made by the authorities below in their respective orders and strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it appears that the A.O. made the impugned addition for the reasons that the assessee could not explain satisfactorily that the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- was not received by him. On the contrary the claim of the assessee was that the said amount was never received by him as there was no provision at all in the contract that any amount would be received in cash, rather the amount was to be received through cheque. The assessee also filed an affidavit dt. 24/06/2021 first time before this Bench of Tribunal with an application to admit the same as an additional evidence. In our opinion, the contents o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
