9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 - SHRI MANISH BORAD, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] Shri K.M. Roy, AR appearing on behalf of the Assessee Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue ORDER PER SONJOY SARMA, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 13.12.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: i. The ld. AO has wrongly treated a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as unaccounted money. 3. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of running a nursing home. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 31.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was withdrawn as there was a confirmation regarding the procurement of land but due to some reason, the deal was not finalized. In response to such reply made by the assessee, the AO again issue notice u/s 142(1) on 02.12.2019 and 06.12.2019 and asked the assessee to provide the name and address of the party from whom the procurement of land was planned. But the assessee-company failed to provide the details as asked by the Assessing Officer. As the assessee failed to provide to provide the details asked by the AO, another show cause notice was issued upon the assessee-company for compliance on or before 13.12.2019. But the assessee-company did not respond to the same and ultimately the AO passed the following order: All the notices w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was found that cash-in-hand on 1st day of every month never exceeded Rs. 14,00,000/- even, which means that the company s requirement to run the day to day activities of the nursing home did not require very high cash in hand balance which is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. It is observable from the table above that the assessee has claimed to have held cash-in-hand varying from Rs. 51.72,861/- to Rs.67,75,722/- from May 2016 to October, 2016. The assessee failed to provide the name and address of the party from whom the procurement of land was planned and failed to answer the question whether there was any agreement executed for the deal of the said land. It is very much evident that the assessee s explanation that the cash amounting Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that during the year under consideration the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 55,00,000/- into its bank account during the month of November, 2016 which was immediately after demonetisation on 08.11.2016. This included a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- which the appellant had withdrawn from its bank in the month of April, 2016 and the same was lying as cash-in-hand. The ld. AR further submitted that the appellant was withdrawn such an amount for purchase of land and was kept in hand. After demonetisation was declared, the appellant had no other option but to deposit the same in its bank. He further submitted that the ld. AO mentioned the fact that the cash deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- as unaccounted money and the AO has wrongly treated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
