9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account. The assessee filed complete details to explain the source of same which was not considered by authorities below. As such, the addition confirmed of Rs. 15,81,100/- being alleged cash deposit in bank account is unjustified, illegal and fit to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that a survey u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was conducted in the business premises of the assessee company. During the survey proceedings certain loose sheets and registers were impounded which are marked as SNK-01 to SNK-24. According to the AO, from a perusal of SNK-11 it revealed that it was self withdrawal and deposit registers and that cash deposit of Rs. 1,66,23,145/- have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es has to make the weekly payments to the labourers at the weekend and at times it happens that the managers after disbursing the wages has surplus cash in their hands which they deposit in the various branches of the bank in assessee's bank account, which might have missed the assessee's accountant's eyes, however, the amount is reflected any way in the bank statement and the amount (Rs. 15,81,100/-) is part of the withdrawn/deposited cash and is not undisclosed credit of the assessee. According to the Ld. AR, from the chart drawn by the AO it can be seen that the sum of Rs. 15,81,100/- consists of a paltry amount of Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 7,000/-, 14,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- etc. leaving aside the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- which was depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 3,50,942/- being interest paid to contractees. Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the agreement from different government departments with whom the assessee works wherein the interest clause @ 13% has been clearly mentioned. Moreover Ld. CIT(A) even did not accept and appreciate that in assessee's own case for previous years, relief has been duly allowed on this issue by them Ld. CIT(A) adjudicating upon it. As such, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the said addition." 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee brought to my notice that this issue is no longer res integra because in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 in ITA No. 47/Ran/2020 this Tribunal vide order dated 30.04.2021 has decided this issue in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure was a contingent liability. The ld. counsel has further brought to my attention to a copy of the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 10.05.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12 wherein, under similar circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) relied upon the order of the predecessor in the case of the assessee in Appeal No.223/JSR/2009-10 for A.Y 2004-05 and observed that the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting wherein the assessee was ascertained his liability of expenses as per terms of agreement and that the said ascertained liability of the assessee should be allowed as expenditure. As per the nature of the business of the assessee, the assessee has ascertained liability on interest expenditure and the Assessing Officer has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
