9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, income from business or profession and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 27.02.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs. 5,00,250/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that assessee has declared NIL cash in hand for the F.Y. 2015-16 whereas as per ITR filed for the A.Y. 2016-17 he has declared Rs. 25,40,867/- as cash in hand. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the same, to which, the assessee submitted as under : "......assessee is being handicapped, have to keep cash in hand in order to meet any sudden/unforeseen eventually...." 3.1. The assessee also submitted copy of cash book for the period from 01.04.2015 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der is vitiated both on fact and in law. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts by initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, by completely failing to appreciate that on the facts and circumstances of the case, no such interest could be validly charged. The above grounds of appeals are independent of, and without prejudice to each oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition which is not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed the following summary giving consolidated details of cash account as on 31.03.2016. 5.1. He further submitted that it is not a case of cash deposit where the source of cash has to be explained, but, it is only cash in hand declared by the assessee in the return of income which was disagreed by the A.O. Further the figure of Rs. 11,90,000/- taken by the A.O. is wrong because it is not known from where he has taken this figure. He submitted that the addition was made on irrelevant ground and, therefore, the same deserves to be deleted. 6. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A). 7. I have considered the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,785.41 respectively as on 31.03.2015 has been shown. I, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the net cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 shown by him at Rs. 25,40,868.60 could not have been ignored by the A.O. merely on the ground that assessee could not justify the huge cash in hand. Since the A.O. has not looked into the various details filed before him during the course of assessment proceedings itself in the shape of balance-sheet and P & L A/c of M/s. Arun Kapoor Water Cooling Plant and M/s. Eagle Water Cooling Plant of which the assessee is proprietor and since the assessee before me has explained the availability of cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 at Rs. 25,40,868.60, therefore, I set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
