9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17.9.2007 - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, the closing balance as on 13.9.2007 should be the opening balance as on 17.9.2007 since there was no transaction between these two dates, though there was deposit into bank account on 17.9.2007. Thus, AO has taken only the difference between these two balances as income of the assessee. He ought to have considered the difference at Rs.4,30,130/- (Rs.2,05,130 + Rs.2,25,000/-). We are not enhancing the additions, since the revenue is not in appeal before us. However, we confirm the addition to the extent of Rs.2,05,130/- only. This ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - only reason for treating this amount as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act is that the assessee has not filed the confirmation letter from Bindu Promoters, Bangalore - HELD THAT:- The balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.3.2007, wherein this amount is duly reflected as receivable and same has been received by the assessee in AY 2008- 09. This claim of the assessee cannot be rejected without bringing any material on record to suggest that this is only accommodation entry. The plea of the assessee is to be considered as genuine unless prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was liable to discharge the same and hence, the addition sustained by the learned CIT[A] is misconceived both on facts and in law. 3. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the aggregate sum of Rs.16,05,130/- added u/s 68 of the Act, treating the same as unexplained cash credits under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.1 The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.2,05,130/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on account of the alleged difference in the brought forward opening balance in the cash book on 17/09/2007 under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs4,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, being the amount realized by the appellant from M/s Bindu Promoters upon the failure of allotment of land to the appellant, which advance given by the appellant wa duly disclosed in the financial statements of the earlier years under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3.3 The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.9,50,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,23,504/- 2 Ramya Traders, Birur 40,660/- 3 Balaji Trading, Kottur 5,13,240/- 4 Tungabadra Adake Mandi 7,409/- 5 M/s. Lakshminarayana Betelnut 16,640/- Total 11,01,453/- 2.1 The assessee has not filed the confirmation from these parties before the lower authorities. This balance is outstanding since 3 to 4 years. According to the AO, this credit was not proved by assessee. Hence, it is ceased to be existed. Accordingly, he invoked the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and treated it as income of assessee. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 2.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. A.R. made a submission that AO treated as his income only on the reason that the assessee was not able to file the confirmation letter from these parties. It cannot lead to the conclusion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on 13.9.2007 at Rs.2,05,130/- as unexplained income of the assessee at Rs.2,05,130/-. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 2.5 We have considered the arguments of both the parties. In our opinion, the closing balance as on 13.9.2007 should be the opening balance as on 17.9.2007 since there was no transaction between these two dates, though there was deposit of Rs.2,25,000/- into bank account on 17.9.2007. Thus, AO has taken only the difference between these two balances as income of the assessee. He ought to have considered the difference at Rs.4,30,130/- (Rs.2,05,130 + Rs.2,25,000/-). We are not enhancing the additions, since the revenue is not in appeal before us. However, we confirm the addition to the extent of Rs.2,05,130/- only. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 2.6 Next ground is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.4,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.7 The facts relating to this issue are that the assessee shows the receipt of Rs.4.5 lakhs from Bindu Promoters. The assessee has explained before AO that this is the balance outstanding receivable from Bindu Promoters in earlier year and same was reflected in the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that there was no cash in cash book on 14-03-2008. On 24-03-2008 cash of Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Om Traders and Rs 9,00,000/- from M/s. Naveen Traders are received. This means the assessee had surplus cash of Rs 9.50 lakhs available on 14-03-2008, which has been deposited in the bank. Thus, the AO added this amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 2.11 The plea of Ld. A.R. is that this is only clerical error and sought an opportunity to reconcile the entries in the cash book and produce the same before the AO. We acceded to the request of Ld. A.R. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of AO with the direction to the assessee to produce the correct cash book after incorporating all the entries and the AO has to consider the same in accordance with law and decide afresh. The issue is remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. 3. Next ground is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.9.51 lakhs out of Rs.19,02,709/- after deleting addition of Rs.9,51,709/- by Ld. CIT(A). 3.1 Facts of the issue are the AO found that the assessee has started construction of a house in April 2007 jointly with his wife and the investment up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not possible to ascertain exact amount invested by assessee since some bills are pending to be paid. 3.5 The Ld. D.R. submitted that the AO has considered the bank disbursements made towards the cost of construction and the bank would not have disbursed the amount to the assessee without investing his share of investment. Accordingly, he submitted that addition to be sustained. 3.6 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, the AO has called for the valuation report from the valuer namely Mr. E. Umesh Sajjan, Sampath Complex, Vinod Nagar, Shimoga dated 25.9.2007. We have gone through the valuation report placed in paper book at page Nos.53 to 57. There was no mention of this investment made by the assessee. It contains the following details:- 1. Land 45,91,125/- 2. Compound wall 8,00,000/- 3. Deep Bore with Motor 35,000/- 4. Power supply 10,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
