9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that only real income has to be taxed and not the gross income of the assessee and, therefore, addition to the extent of Rs.74,50,000/- was taken into consideration on the basis of promissory note. CIT(A) further observed that all the payments as per the promissory notes are made after the date of receipts as reflected in P3 tab, therefore, accepted the assessee s contention. CIT(A) has given a table calculating the cash to the extent of Rs.2,05,50,000/- which was received in cash. Thus, the addition made by the CIT(A) is justifiable. There is no need to interfere with the same. Unaccounted expenses against unaccounted income declared under PMGKY 2016 - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has taken cognisance of Circular No.43 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016, the same declaration of set off was already filed and taxes were paid. The Assessing Officer cannot tax the same amount by invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the said addition. Ground no.3 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Undisclosed income - DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences during appellate proceedings and never called for remand report which is viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,50,000/- out of Rs.3,25,00,000/- on account of receipt of cash. 2.1 The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that name of the client is mentioned from whom/to whom cash is received/paid and should be treated as such without insisting on identification/confirmation of the parties as it is unnecessary and impossible burden for the appellant to discharge, is against the set principles of Income Tax Law that in respect of any credit entry the primary onus is on the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of such entities. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,15,00,000/- made on protective basis on account of receipt of cash. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that neither any proceeding have been initiated/pending against Shri Kartiak Patel nor any substantive additions made in his hand is wrong to the extent that information has already been sent to ITO, Ward1(2)(2), Surat for initiating proceedings in the case of Shri Karti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kartik Patel nor any substantive additions made in his hand is wrong to the extent that information has already been sent to ITO, Ward 1(2)(2), Surat for initiating proceedings in the case of Shri Kartik Patel. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,50,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income on account of advance received for sale of land, admitting the additional evidence during the appellate proceedings which was neither forwarded to this office nor any report called for which is violation of Rule 46A. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. 7. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored to the above extent. 3. We are taking first Assessment Year 2015-16 on the request of the Ld. AR as this Assessment Year is the lead Assessment Year. 4. The assessee is an individual and engaged as an Estate Broker and Property Consultant. The assessee filed original return of income on 29.01.2016 declaring total income at Rs.9, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e being any corroborative seized material and further rejected the claim of the assessee that he has acted as Middleman only. The Ld. AR submitted the Excel File retrieved from the computers used by its staff members cannot be the sole criteria for making the addition. The Ld. AR further submitted that except for one tab named as Ajay 379, rest of all the 7 tabs contain transactions wherein his role was that of a broker only. These excel tags were prepared by his staff members under the supervision of his Manager Shri Kartik Patel. The assessee furnished an affidavit of the same Manager confirming that the assessee informed the Manager about the receipts and payments in relation to property dealings where he acted as a Broker and the Manager used to maintain records about cash/cheque received/paid either directly by the assessee or by the Manager. The Ld. AR submitted that such excel sheet contains inherent possibility of error in communication resulting into error in making data entries and, therefore, such excel sheets have little sanctity and are thus dump documents. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that since the correctness of excel sheet is doubted and there is no material to corro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also is not been established by the assessee through any documents. It is only oral submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has categorically mentioned in para 7.6 that only real income has to be taxed and not the gross income of the assessee and, therefore, addition to the extent of Rs.74,50,000/- was taken into consideration on the basis of promissory note. The CIT(A) further observed that all the payments as per the promissory notes are made after the date of receipts as reflected in P3 tab, therefore, accepted the assessee s contention. The CIT(A) has given a table on page no.41, calculating the cash to the extent of Rs.2,05,50,000/- which was received in cash. Thus, the addition made by the CIT(A) is justifiable. There is no need to interfere with the same. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 is dismissed. 11. As regards to Revenue s appeal, being ITA No.484/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16, ground nos.1, 2 3 relate to protective addition which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Thus, Ground nos.1, 2 3 of Revenue s appeal are dismissed. 12. As regards ground no.4 related to unexplained cash loan, the same has been properly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and taxes were paid. The Assessing Officer cannot tax the same amount by invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the said addition. Ground no.3 of Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 24. As regards ground no.4, the same is identical to A.Y. 2015-16 and hence dismissed. 25. As regards ground no.5 relating to addition of Rs.2,50,00,000/- on account of undisclosed income, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences during appellate proceedings and never called for remand report which is violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 26. The Ld, AR submitted that these documents were very well before the Assessing Officer and was not additional evidence. Ld. AR relied upon the order of CIT(A). 27. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that from the perusal of the Assessment Order, it can be seen that the said Banakat deed and relevant documents were before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly taken cognisance of these documents and the same cannot be treated as additional ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
