9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectively. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of estimated turnover and profit to the extent of Rs. 15,22,780/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND II :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 4,80,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account Of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs.4,80,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND III :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 61,23,440/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 61,23,440/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IV :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements did not reflect the true and correct picture of the business and personal transactions of deceased assessee and as such could not be relied upon. Deceased assessee filed his return of income u/s.139 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration on 27.11.2003 declaring total income of Rs.6,53,507/-. The notice u/s.153A of the Act dated 12.10.2009 was issued and served on the deceased assessee asking him to file his return of income. In response, deceased assessee filed his return of income u/s.153A for the assessment year under appeal declaring total income at Rs.6,53,510/-. Assessee was asked to explain the submission of details along with explanation of seized/ impounded materials. Ultimately, assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A was passed by Assessing Officer on 29.12.2011 for the year under consideration determining total income of deceased assessee at Rs.93,71,127/- after making certain additions/disallowances. 3.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein first issue was raised with regard to rejection of books of accounts of deceased assessee and estimation of turnover and profit of the business of Rs.38,06,951/- and Rs.15,22,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the business was estimated at 40% of its turnover which comes to Rs.15,22,780/-. Accordingly, the deceased assessee's net profit was estimated at Rs. 15,22,780/-. In appeal before the First Appellate Authority, various contentions were raised on behalf of deceased assessee and having considered the same, CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer who estimated the net profit at Rs.15,22,780/- after rejecting the books of account. 3.2 Same has been opposed before us inter alia submitting that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the estimation of turnover and profit thereon at Rs.15,22,780/-. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that addition in question is not justified by way of making estimation of turnover and profit thereon. Assessing Officer has not given actual working as to how the estimated turnover of Rs.38,06,951/- was calculated. The stand of deceased assessee has been that he used to deal in Navi-Mumbai areas. He used to identify those suitable locations of CIDCO plots belonging to different farmers, get them properly allotted to them and enter into MoUs with them for sale of the said plots of land to the Real Estate developers who were in need of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be added as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Assessee submitted relevant details like; address, PAN, his bank account statement and parties' bank account statements, account confirmation letters, copy of parties' income tax returns etc. But Assessing Officer after rejecting the contention on behalf of deceased assessee made addition in question. 4.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein CIT(A) confirmed Rs.4,80,000/- out of Rs.6,80,000/-. There is nothing on record to suggest that Revenue is against partial relief granted by CIT(A). So, narrow issue before us is regarding confirmation of Rs.4,80,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act. The stand of deceased assessee has been that deceased assessee has accepted Rs. 3 lacs and Rs.1,80,000/- from M/s.Shubham Estate Consultants and M/s. Ramesh Homes Building & Developer respectively, Assessing Officer has accepted that though confirmations from the said parties were filed but they did not appear before Assessing Officer. Without prejudice to above, stand of assessee has been that the above addition in question is having no nexus with the seized material found during course of search in question. So, ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd transactions therewith. Once transaction was stated to be completed, so, it was no more liability. All details in this regard were filed before Revenue authorities. Assessee has tried to prove the identity by giving details of parties. Agreeing to alternate contention of assessee, we hold that addition in question having no nexus with seized material as discussed above, so in view of the ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. (supra), addition u/s.68 of the Act is not justified. Under facts and circumstances, the addition in question is directed to be deleted. 6. Next issue is with regards to addition of Rs.6,65,782/- on account of estimating withdrawal at Rs.4,80,000/- as against Rs.2,34,218/- shown in capital account. Assessing Officer estimated withdrawals at Rs.4,80,000/- as against Rs. 2,34,218/- on account of household expenses. The stand of deceased assessee has been that this addition is on the basis of purely on estimation and having no nexus with the seized material found at the time of search. Agreeing to the contention on behalf of assessee and in view of ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. (supra) as discussed above, addition in question is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- made on account of personal element in certain expenses. The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 51,229/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted." 9. First issue in this appeal is with regard to addition of Rs.1,30,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,30,000/- on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet. In his answer to Question no. 4, statement record during course of search in his office, deceased assessee categorically stated that while dealing in 12.5% CIDCO Plots, the consideration paid to the farmers/investors was both in cash and by cheques. During course of search, a number of computer generated sheets were found at the business premises of deceased assessee containing various details in respect of each particular land deal. These sheets hereinafter have been termed as 'Deal Wise Excel Sheet' (DWES). Each sheet corresponded to a particular deal and showed the status of payments made by cheque as well as in cash as on a particular date. The amounts of 'onmoney' paid were found to be not reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reating unexplained cash payment as mentioned on page no.14 of Annexure A-1 impounded from Arneja Office of deceased assessee u/s.69C of the Act. The stand of deceased assessee has been that he was only agent viz. deal maker. So, following reasoning as discussed in para 9.1 of this order, addition in question is directed to be deleted. 11. Next issue is with regard to addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit of Rs.51,68,811/- u/s.68 of the Act. Assessee has shown current liabilities of Rs.1,09,68,811/- against various parties' narrations. Since, deceased assessee was not able to give satisfactory answer to the Assessing Officer, so, same was u/s.68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,09,68,811/-. 11.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee. As stated above, Assessing Officer has stated that current liabilities aggregating to Rs.1,09,68,811/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act as deceased assessee failed to discharge his onus by not establishing the identity and creditworthiness of concerned parties as well as genuineness of transactions at the time of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in upholding the addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure to the extent of Rs.1,71,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND III :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.16,77,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 16,77,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IV :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.11,00,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asked to furnish details of all these bank accounts found during course of search and explanation about nature and source of deposits therein along with supporting documents. Assessing Officer observed that the above bank account with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. was operative from F.Y.2003-04 (A.Y.2004-05). It was claimed by deceased assessee that M/s. Sadguru Arts was a defunct entity since the year 2003. However, from perusal of above bank account statements, it was found that there were substantial transactions in these bank accounts. In view of these facts, deceased assessee was asked to explain these issues. In response to same, deceased assessee vide its letter dated 19.12.2011 stated that these accounts of M/s. Sadguru Arts and certain credit card transactions were not reflected in his balance sheet because the same related to his HUF and were accounted for in that entity. However, CIT(A) also rejected deceased assessee's contention. It was found that as per the copy of bank statement received from the bank, there were total deposits of Rs.63,51,926/- in the bank account with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. in F.Y.2004-05 relevant to the assessment year under consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wife is the legal heir even of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF). So, same was to be assessed in HUF. There was no clarity with regard to partition of HUF, so, Assessing Officer was directed to intimate his counterpart having jurisdiction over the case of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF) to initiate necessary action for assessing the said amount of unexplained bank deposits of Rs.63,51,926/- in the hands of said HUF by resorting to the provisions of Section 148 r.w.s. 150 of the Act. Therefore, the substantive addition on account of unexplained bank deposits of Rs.63,51,926/- made by Assessing Officer in the hands of deceased assessee was deleted. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, it was held that protective addition of Rs.63,51,926/- towards unexplained deposits in aforesaid bank account will continue in the hands of assessee till the said amount is finally assessed in the hands of assessee's HUF. Once CIT(A) held that the amount belongs to bank account deposit of Rs.63,51,926/- should be assessed in the hands of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF), so, protective addition in case of deceased assessee is not justified and same is directed to be deleted. 17. Next issue is wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to Rs.l.11 crores in respect of various land deals have been seized/impounded as tabulated in para 8.1 on page 17 of the impugned order. During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer in respect of all receipts mentioned in para 8.1 on page 17 asked deceased assessee to furnish complete details/explanation along with supporting documents and evidences vide show-cause notice dated 15.10.2010. Since, deceased assessee could not give satisfactory explanation in this regard, so, Assessing Officer held that unexplained expenditure of Rs.16,77,000/- would not be allowed as a deduction under any head of income as per proviso to Section 69C of the Act. In appeal, same was confirmed. 18.1 As we have discussed similar matter in A.Y. 2003-04, wherein stand of assessee has been that deceased assessee is only a real estate agent or broker or deal maker and hence he used to block the plots by giving some advances to the plot owners-cum-farmers for which they would issue the receipts and for the sake of effective control and monitoring, deceased assessee was keeping with him all the receipts either paid by him directly or paid by the intending buyers. Out of these receipts, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee showed date-wise details of payments made between 15.02.2004 to 12.09.2007 in cash and cheques to various farmers/brokers in respect of various properties /plots. Deceased assessee was asked to furnish source of these payments along with supporting documents and other relevant details. But Deceased assessee failed to give reasonable explanation in this regard. Assessing Officer observed that these payments were neither reflected in the books of account nor included in the fund/cash flow statements submitted by deceased assessee during the postsearch proceedings. He also noted from the date-wise entries of various payments that unaccounted cash payments of Rs.11,00,000/- pertained to A.Y.2005-06. In view of above, unaccounted cash payments amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- and pertaining to A.Y.2005-06 were held as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act and added to the total income of deceased assessee. It was also held that the said unexplained expenditure of Rs.11,00,000/- would not be allowed as a deduction as per proviso to Section 69C of the Act under any head of income. 19.1 Matter was carried before the CIT(A), wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for brokerage only. In view of above, addition in question is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 20. Next issue is with regard to addition to the extent of Rs.81,88,760/-. Assessing Officer made addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,00,95,760/- treating all current liabilities and unsecured loan as cash credit. It consists of unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/- and current liabilities of Rs.1,28,67,000/- against various parties/ narrations. 20.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein out of Rs.72,28,760/-, addition to the extent of Rs. 44,21,760/- and out of Rs.1,28,67,000/-, addition to the extent of Rs.37,67,000/- sustained by CIT(A) which comes to Rs.81,88,760/-. Revenue is not in appeal against this relief granted to assessee. 20.2 With regard to unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/-, the assessee has furnished the confirmation letter from 9 parties who had given unsecured loans of Rs.41,59,610/- to assessee. As regards sum of Rs.22,50,000/- shown in the name of Radhika Flat (Shaziya Dhanani), it was submitted that this was part of sale proceeds of assessee's self occupied property, namely, Radhika Flat in Vashi received from Shaziya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion are not justified. Same are directed to be deleted. 21. Next ground is with regard to addition of Rs.4,72,443/- on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals of Rs.11,00,000/- than shown in capital account at Rs.6,27,557/-. During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that as per deceased assessee's capital account, an amount of Rs.6,27,557/- was debited on account of household expenses and he had claimed that it was more than sufficient. In this regard, queries were made from assessee and living standard of assessee's household withdrawal was found sufficient. So, Assessing Officer added Rs.4,72,443/- which has been restricted to Rs.92,443/- by CIT(A). There is nothing on record to suggest that this addition on the basis of household expenses has been made on the basis of seized material found during course of search. So, such addition in absence of any material was not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 22. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of Rs.35,419/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses. Addition on account of personal element in certain expenses is not justified. The stand of deceased assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND V :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.4,00,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND VI :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 43,32,400/- u/s. 68 of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 43,32,400/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND VII :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals of Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during course of search and explanation about nature and source of deposits therein along with supporting documents. It was observed that the above bank account with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. was operative from F.Y.2003-04 (A.Y.2004-05). In view of these facts, deceased assessee vide show-cause notice dated 07.12.2011 was specifically asked about these issues. In reply, deceased assessee vide its letter received by Assessing Officer on 19.12.2011 claimed that these accounts of M/s. Sadguru Arts and certain credit card transactions were not reflected in his balance sheet because the same related to his HUF and were accounted for in that entity. After considering the submissions on behalf of deceased assessee, Assessing Officer did not believe and assessee's claim was thus rejected. As per the copies of bank statements received from the banks, there were total deposits of Rs.2,01,46,916/- in the bank accounts with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited in F.Y.2005-06 relevant to year under consideration out of which there were cash deposits of Rs.32,33,000/-. As deceased assessee failed to furnish explanation as regards the nature and source of the said d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not that of assessee. CIT(A) found that no return of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF) has been filed for the year under consideration despite the fact that there were total deposits of Rs.1,56,33,474/- in the aforesaid two accounts of the HUF. Since the said bank accounts claimed to be pertaining to assessee's HUF, it was held that substantive addition on account of unexplained deposits of Rs. 1,56,33,474/- contained in the bank account Nos. 117150050800335 and 029204301220192 with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. respectively has to be made not in the hands of assessee but in the hands of his HUF which is a separate taxable entity under the Act. However, CIT(A) observed that assessee being the Karta of his HUF passed away on 07.01.2013 and was survived by his wife and a minor daughter and son. In view of this, it was deceased assessee's wife who is the legal representative even of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF). CIT(A) observed that there is no clarity in the present case as to whether upon the death of Karta (deceased assessee), any partition whether total or partial has taken place among members of the family. According to him, provisions of Section 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of investors. He was only liable for commission thereon. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, this addition in question is not sustainable. So, same is directed to be deleted. 26. Next issue is with regard to addition of 'Deal Wise Excel Sheets' (DWES) for Rs.1,47,000/-. According to Assessing Officer, in answer to Question no.4, in his statement record u/s.132(4) in course of search at his office, deceased assessee has stated that while dealing in 12.5% CIDCO plots, the consideration paid to the farmers/investors was both in cash and by cheques. During course of search, a number of computer generated sheets were found at the business premises of the deceased assessee containing various details in respect of each particular land deal. These sheets hereinafter have been termed as 'Deal Wise Excel Sheet' (DWES). Each sheet corresponded to a particular deal and showed the status of payments made by cheque as well as in cash as on a particular date. The amounts of on-money paid were found to be not reflected in the books of account of deceased assessee. During course of post search proceedings, the deceased assessee submitted fund flow/cash statements cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h receipts containing details of cash payments made by deceased assessee aggregating to Rs.1.11 crores in respect of various land deals have been seized/impounded as tabulated in para 8.1 on page 17 of the impugned order. During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer in respect of all the receipts mentioned in para 8.1 on page 17 asked the deceased assessee to furnish complete details/explanation along with supporting documents and evidences vide show cause notice dated 15.10.2010. In response to same, the deceased assessee could not submit any detail. Under these circumstances, it was presumed by Assessing Officer that the deceased assessee had nothing to say. Assessing Officer noticed that the above cash payments were appearing neither in the books of account nor cash flow statement submitted by deceased assessee in post search proceedings on 18.04.2009. In view of above, the unaccounted cash payments amounting to Rs.43,14,000/pertaining to A.Y.2006-07 were held as unexplained expenditure and added back to the total income of deceased assessee. Assessing Officer also held that the unexplained expenditure of Rs.43,14,000/- would not be allowed as a deduction under any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any submission in this regard. As per balance sheet of F.Y. 200506, it was observed that deceased assessee had shown unsecured loans of Rs.16,06,610/- in name of various parties. Assessee vide notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 03.08.2010 was asked to furnish various details in respect of such loans. But even after lapse of more than one and half years, the deceased assessee had failed to submit those details. The deceased assessee also ailed to submit the relevant details like address, PAN, his bank account statement and parties' bank account statements, account confirmation letters, copies of the parties' income tax returns, etc. The Assessing Officer noted that in respect of such credit entries, the onus was on the deceased assessee to establish identity and creditworthiness of the parties concerned and genuineness of such transactions u/s.68 of the Act. Since the deceased assessee had failed to discharge the onus u/s.68 of the Act, the said amount of unsecured loans of Rs.16,06,610/- was held as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the deceased assessee u/s.68 of the Act. 29.1 The deceased assessee had shown current liabilities of Rs.74,22,400/- aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oans of Rs.16,06,610/-, it is stated that unsecured loans amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.38,000/- taken from M/s.Sangram Patil and M/s.Shubham Estate Consultant very short. In view of the submissions of the appellant, the said additional evidence filed by the appellant was admitted and sent to the A.O. calling for remand report after verification of the said evidence. The A.O. forwarded his remand report vide letter dated 19.12.2014 copy of which was provided to the appellant for submitting his rejoinder, if any. Since no rejoinder was furnished by the appellant, the matter is disposed of in light of the additional evidences placed on record and the findings contained in the remand report. 9.3.4 A perusal of the remand report reveals that regarding amount of Rs. 30,22,400/- in the name of Shri Ravi Bangar, it is stated that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- pertained to earlier A.Y (which was also added in that year) and Rs.60,000/- was repayment during the year. In this regard, notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to the party by the A.O. However, the party failed to provide any evidence on the pretext that the matter was very old. This led the A.O. to draw an adverse inference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abilities/creditors u/s.68 is found to be justified as the appellant has failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned parties and genuineness of the transactions even at the appellate stage. Therefore, the said addition of Rs.38,22,400/- out of current liabilities is sustained. Ground No.6 of the present appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above." 29.3 Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06, which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 20 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to concur with the finding of CIT(A) and additions in question are directed to be deleted. 30. Next issue is with regard to estimated higher withdrawals of Rs.2,08,829/-. Assessing Officer made this addition on account of Rs.6,28,823/-. In appeal, partial relief was granted to assessee by CIT(A). 30.1 We find that this whole addition on account of estimated higher withdrawals having no nexus with the seized material, so addition in question u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act are not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. 31. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of Rs.53,398 made on account of personal element. Again, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the two savings bank account alleged as undisclosed in the Balance Sheet/books of accounts. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained deposits/ unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs.1,04,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND III :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in upholding the addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure to the extent of Rs.7,02,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted. GROUND IV :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.35,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexpl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent of Rs.4,93,674/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted." 35. First issue is with regard to protective assessment of Rs.21,60,000/-. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2005-06 vide para 16 of this order wherein we have deleted the protective addition. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, protective assessment of Rs.21,60,000/- is directed to be deleted. 36. Next issue is with regard to addition of Rs.1,04,000/- as unexplained deposits u/s.68 of the Act in respect of the two savings bank account. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2005-06 which has been decided in favour of assessee vide para 19 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, addition in question is directed to be deleted. 37. Next issue is with regard to addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. Similar addition made in A.Y. 2003-04 which has been deleted by us vide para 3 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, addition in question is directed to be deleted. 38. Next issue is with regard to addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
