9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned lower authorities. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that the impugned addition of Rs. 1,75,27,892/- has been rightly made in both the lower proceedings. The same stands upheld. Ad-hoc addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- - HELD THAT:- Revenue could hardly rebut the fact that the CIT(A) has nowhere adjudicated the same in his order under challenged. We thus restore the assessee's instant latter substantive ground back to the CIT(A) for his detailed adjudication as per section 250(6) of the Act as per within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. - ITA No. 2999/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2022 - SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discrepancies in the dates of withdrawals and the dates of making cash payments and therefore did not accept the contention of the appellant. To resolve this controversy, it is necessary to examine in depth the entries in the cash book' as well as the loose papers found. The appellant has submitted before me that the cash payments made and recorded in each loose paper is sourced out of withdrawals from bank accounts as under:- Loose paper Source : Bank of India CA No. 2414 Loose Paper No. 1 totalling to Rs.29,32,892 14/06/2012 2892.00 23/06/2012 30000.00 09/07/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cash 20,00,000/- 2.7.12 Cash 5000000/- 5.4.12 Cash 2000000/- 5.4.12 Cash 37,50,000/- 27.4.12 Cash 44,00,000/- 13.4.12 Cash 50,00,000/- Cash 30,00,000/- 1,88,50,000/- It is evident that the same is titles 'Fund Out Flow' without flow of cash mentioned as Rs. 20,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly Rs. 17/00,000. Similarly the cash withdrawals from the bank from 17/4/2012 to 26/4/2012 are Rs. 45,00,000, while the cash out flow on 27/4/2012 is Rs. 44,00,000. The appellant cannot explain what has happened to the balance Rs. 1,00,000 cash in hand as it is neither entered in the cash, book nor anywhere else in the books of account. Similarly the appellant 'is also not able to explain how he could have spent Rs. 80,00,000 on 13/4/2612 when the bank withdrawals are only Rs. 17,00,000. It should also be kept in mind that the cash physically found as on date of survey was Rs. 4,09,506. In case of other loose papers, there is no date of cash payment mentioned thereon. The appellant is therefore trying to randomly link a particular cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectness regarding contents therein as per section 292C of the Act. We further find that the assessee could not reconcile the impugned addition figures in its regular books before the learned lower authorities. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that the impugned addition of Rs. 1,75,27,892/- has been rightly made in both the lower proceedings. The same stands upheld. 4. Next comes the assessee's second substantive ground of ad-hoc addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- which was pleaded as the 4 substantive ground in the lower appellate proceedings. The Revenue could hardly rebut the fact that the CIT(A) has nowhere adjudicated the same in his order under challenged. We thus restore the assessee's instant latter substantive ground bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
