9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that Appellant has not been able to explain the source of cash deposits in its bank account - Decided against assessee. Disallowing loss from business - HELD THAT:- The assessee has neither given any justification regarding loss nor filed any supporting evidences. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Non admitting the additional evidences - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not substantiated as to how the application for filing additional evidence was maintainable as per Rules. In the absence of the same, no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A). This ground of appeal is thus, dismissed. Failure to accept cash in hand - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any supporting evidences and in the form of cash flow etc., the plea of the assessee cannot be accepted that it had cash in hand. Hence, we find no interference in the finding of authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground raised by the assessee are dismissed. Debit entries of the bank account i.e. the assessee withdrew the cash from bank to make the payments to the farm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings. 6. That neither Ld. A.O. not CIT(A) accepted cash in hand of ₹ 2,75,000/- available in the books of account. 7. That there was no evidence against the appellant for investing of cash. It is intangible addition in the hand of appellant without evidence as such A.O. failed to establish that alleged cash have been invested somewhere. 8. That neither the A.O. nor the CIT(A) considered the debit entries of the Bank Account i.e. the appellant withdrew the cash from Bank to make the payments to farmers due to the failure to develop the land as per their mutual agreement. 9. That Ld. A.O. erred in law and facts of the case in levying Interest u/s 234A & 234B in as much as reasonable and sufficient opportunity before passing the order was not given and CIT (A) was not justified to uphold the Order of Ld. A.O. 10. That Ld. A.O. erred in law and facts of the case for imposing Penalty in as much as reasonable and sufficient opportunity before passing the order was not given and CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the Order of Ld. A.O. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter/amend or withdraw herein or add any further ground as may be considered necessary either bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 by observing as under:- 5.3. "Ground 3 &.6 pertain to an addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- on account of cash deposit of ₹ 13,00,000/- in the bank account of appellant. As per ITS data, AO observed that assessee was having account with Oriental Bank of Commerce bearing a/c no, 08151131000778 and has deposited cash of ₹ 13,00,000/- on 23.10.2009. Since, assessee did not furnish detail regarding source of cash deposited in his bank, Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained income. During the course of appellate proceedings, appellant has submitted that appellant company is facilitator of real estate company whereby it has agreements with individual land owners to procure-agricultural land measuring 2000 acres in the state of MP. Further. It has been submitted that it has entered into MOU with M/s PACL India Ltd., New Delhi. It has also been submitted that appellant has collected an amount of ₹ 10,25,000/- as loan in cash from agriculturists and the balance amount is from cash balance available. 5.3.1. I have carefully considered the observations of AO and submissions of appellant. Appellant has claimed that he has entered into a MOU on 12.10.2009 with M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, it is held that Appellant has not been able to explain the source of cash deposits in its bank account. Therefore, I find no basis to interfere in the order of Assessing Officer. Accordingly, disallowance of ₹ 13,00,000/- is sustained. As a result, ground no.3 & 6 are dismissed. 5.4. Ground no.4 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground is pre-mature at this stage and hence no adjudication is required. 5.5. Ground No.5 pertains to charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B and hence consequential." 10. The above finding on fact is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the order of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee are rejected. 11. Ground No.4 is against not accepting the loss of ₹ 43,525/- from business. 12. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has not filed original return of income therefore, the authorities below were justified in not allowing the business loss. 13. I have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
