9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of mind even if not considering the pick credit of the bank accounts while determine unexplained cash deposits. b) For that the AO erred by invoking section 68 of the IT Act by taking figure from the bank account where as the bank accounts are not treated as books of account, thereby invoking section 68 is bad in law. c) For that in absence of cash book, the AO is erred by invoking section 68 of the I.T. Act by determining unexplained cash deposit, where as the cash deposits are very well explained from the sale of agricultural products being deposited in the bank account. 2. Addition of Rs. 1,15,028/-. For that the AO has failed to taking into consideration the evidences in support of claim of rebate u/s. 80C of the IT Act even t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1335 of 2018 order dated 30.7.2019 in paras 16 & 17 of the said judgment held as under: "16. There is one another valid reason for us to say that ordinarily the matter should not be remitted by the Appellate Tribunal to the Ld. CIT(A) if the Appellate Tribunal is in a position to decide the appeal on its own merits having regard to the evidence on record. Such remand orders lead to unnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the revenue. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashwinkumar K Patel vs. Upendra J. Patel, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 161, in context with an order of remand passed by the High Court under order 41 Rule 23 of the CPC, observed as under: "The High Court should not ordinarily remand a case under "order 41 Rule 23 CPC to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case. Since the provisions of section 68 of the Act applied in this case is no more res integra, therefore, on technical ground, the appeal has to be allowed. 8. Even otherwise, on merits, Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the AO called upon the assessee to substantiate the source of deposits of the alleged amount of Rs. 31,41,900/- and the assessee has submitted the confirmation regarding selling of paddy to M/s. Rameswar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Nayapali, Bhubaneswar amounting to Rs. 24,55,250/- but the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee. Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the entire sale proceeds as disclosed by the assessee with supporting documents was not accepted by the AO for the reason tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngwith ledger A/c of M/s. Rameswar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., as a source of deposits in the bank accounts against the alleged cash deposits of Rs. 31,41,900/- after due adjustment of the same alongwith net agricultural income i.e. Rs. 31,41,900 - Rs. 24,55,250 + Rs. 1,85,000/-) = Rs. 5,01,650/-. He, therefore, submitted that the addition of Rs. 24,55,250/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and non-application of mind. 9. Ld. A.R. further submitted that in this case section 68 of the Act is not attracted at all. He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Baladin Ram, vs. CIT, 71 ITR 427 (SC) ii) Anandram Raitani vs. CIT, 223 ITR 544 (Gau) iii) Smt. Madhu Raitani vs. ACIT, 45 SOT 231 (Gau) iv) Smt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dustries Pvt. Ltd., which is not accepted by the AO. Section 68 of the I.T. Act is as follows: "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year." 13. Section 68 of the Act is attracted (a) when the assessee fails to prove the genuineness of the transaction that has entered into his book of accounts; (b) when there is no satisfactory explanation provided on the part of the assessee to the AO with respect to the amount credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a man of ordinary prudent, one cannot disagree with the contention of the assessee that even if he is a director in the purchase company i.e. M/s. Rameswar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., he cannot be refrained from making sale of paddy to the company in which he is a director. However, I am cautious about the provisions of section 40A(2) & (3) of the Act, wherein, the department has right to examine the expenses and payments made to related parties by the related parties but it is not the allegation of the AO in the present case. I am also not in agreement with the contention of Ld. DR that if sale has not been shown by the assessee in the return of income, then entire amount has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee as his income because i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
