9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vities of assessee are doubtful and the assessee has raised lame excuse of inadvertent mistake only. Therefore, do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by assessee. - ITA No.91/SRT/2020 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3 Surat [for short to as Ld. CIT(A) ] dated 12.03.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income- Tax Act (Act) dated 28.09.2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the assessee as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs.8,24,191/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee further submits that assessee is a senior and law binding citizen and never committed similar mistake in past. For the year under consideration, the assessee was not at all aware about the passing of impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on 01.03.2019. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee has given a self-declaration certificate by filling his affidavit that physical copy of order of Ld. CIT(A) was not received by assessee. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue further submits that assessee is casually in explaining the cause of delay and delay is substantial and may not be condoned. 4. I have considered the submission of both the parties and have gone through the contents of affidavit filed by assessee. In the affidavit, the assessee categorically deposed that no physical copy of Ld. CIT(A) was received by him and subsequently he came to know only when downloaded in his income tax portal to verify the status of tax liability. No contrary evidence against the affidavit of assessee is shown to us that the impugned order was served on the assessee with in ordinary circumstances. Therefore, I have no reason to disbeli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot proved with credible evidence that mistake was bona fide and occurred inadvertently while filing his return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.8,24,191/- as income of assessee. 8. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the addition made in the assessment order. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee besides reiterating the submission made before the Assessing Officer also contended that Assessing Officer made huge addition of entire opening cash balance by treating it as unexplained cash credit. The assessing officer has not verified the complete facts of the case of assessee in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, wherein the assessee has shown cash balance of Rs.1,34,171/- and Rs.3,05,483/- respectively. The assessee also furnished cash balance in subsequent assessment years also and tried to impress that not showing the cash balance as on 31.03.2013 was a bona fide mistake. The assessee further stated that in the income-tax return filed for assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has shown cash balance of Rs.4,56,732/-. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the contents of assessment order and the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness transaction, the addition of opening cash balance may be deleted. To support of his submiss, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in Babbal Bhatia vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0566 Delhi-Trib and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1982) 11 Taman 59 (Bom)/(1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom). 11. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that in the return of income for preceding assessment year i.e. 2013-14, the assessee has shown cash-in-hand at zero. Further, the assessee has shown sundry creditor, sundry debtor and stock-in-trade at zero for the year under consideration, the assessee against shown sundry debtor, sundry creditor and stock-in-trade at zero. Thus, the business activities of assessee are doubtful and the assessee lame excuse of inadvertent mistake only. The closing balance of previous year can be considered as opening balance of subsequent years. The fact of the assessee s case is contrary to the set principle of accounting. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue prayed before me for dismissal of appeal of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
