9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of capital gain. The reliance on case SHRI SACHINDER MOHAN MEHTA [ 2014 (12) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is also germane and applies on the facts of the case. Hence, we uphold the orders of the authorities below. Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 5966/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2022 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Department : Shri Airiju Jaikiran ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38 dated 29.05.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. On the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of a sum of ₹ 5,09,120/- made u/s. 68 by considering cash deposits as cash credits. 2. On the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT-A has further erred in upholding the disallowance of indexed cost of improvement consisting of Repairs, renovation, furniture and fixtures amounting to ₹ 24,47,045/- while Computing capital gain/ loss on sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring average) Particulars Amount (Rs.) Opening Cash Balance (average) 7,63,455/- Cash Income during the year 1,70.880/- Cash withdrawals during the year 2,00,000/- Total cash on Hand 11,34,335/- Cash deposits during the year (12,80,000/-) Net cash shortfall ₹ 1,45,665/- Accordingly, the assessee, without prejudice to her contention of not making any addition on account of cash deposits, has offered to the amount of ₹ 1,45,665/- being the short fall in cash deposits worked out as per above charts, towards excess cash deposits in bank. Therefore, submitted that the said, amount of ₹ 1,45,665/- may be added to her income for the year. 5. However, the AO was not satisfied. He granted a relief of ₹ 4,00,000/- cash balance. The order of the AO in this regards reads as under:- The submission of the assessee is duly considered but the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, the working of average opening cash balance at ₹ 7,63,455/- of the assessee for the financial year under consideration is not acceptable. However, to arrive at a fair conclusion after considering the nature of income of the assessee over the past 20 years and total receipt of the year under consideration and also considering the deposits and withdrawal of cash by the assessee in banks, the opening balance of cash on hand of the assessee would be at around ₹ 4,00,000. Considering this, cash summary of the assessee is worked out as under: Cash summary (considering average) Particulars Amount (Rs.) Opening Cash Balance ( as discussed above) 4,00,000/- Cash income during the year 1,70,880/ Cash withdrawals during the year 7,70,880/- Total cash on Hand 7,70,880/- Cash deposits during the year (12,80,000/-) Net cash shortfall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the year itself, hence no surplus cash is available to be carried forwarded by her to the subsequent years also. The above facts demonstrate that the appellant had adjusted the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2012 and the drawings in every year so that sufficient cash balance can be reflected in the cash book, however in reality no cash balance was available with the appellant. Therefore, it can rightly be concluded that cash deposit made by her during the year under consideration is not supported by any collaborative evidence. Accordingly, the AO has correctly computed the opening cash balance at ₹ 5,09,120/-and made addition of the same by invoking the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above facts and circumstance, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 7. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notice. I note that in explanation for the cash deposit in the bank account assessee, whose income is only from tuitions fees and job work submitted that she was having huge cash balance. 9. However, aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of the impugned property. Further, during the assessment proceedings itself the appellant has filed a revised claim of cost of improvement at ₹ 10,87,891/- which is lower than the expenses claimed by the appellant in the return of income. On perusal of the aforesaid documents filed by the appellant in respect of the cost of improvement it is evident that most of the expenses were incurred in cash, From the perusal of the ledger account and the purchase invoices, 1 find that the expenses stated therein is for purchase of wall papers and labour charges, furniture such as dining table, dinning chair, centre table, side table, sofas and crockery etc. which consist of furniture fixture, furnishings, kitchen appliances etc. The purchase invoices also show purchase of kitchen items such as chimney, microwave, oven, coffee maker, shoe rack cabinet, Juice Bar Drawer, Laundry basket, handles etc. The above items are not capital assets. Hence, the above expenses cannot be allowed as cost of improvement of the impugned house property. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant that cost of improvement was incurred for renovati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
