9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been accepted. The income, therefore, therein has been accepted. There is no reason why the cash due of the income disclosed u/s 44AD should not be accepted. It is settled law that books of account vouchers are not required in 44AD return. Hence, adverse inference cannot be taken that cash book vouchers have not been maintained. The same income cannot be taxed twice once in the hands of HUF and once again in the hands of the assessee. We set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate, Shri Sudarshan Roy, Advocate, Ms. Shweta Bansal,CA For the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appreciate that the same was not unaccounted money of the Appellant but pertains to the business operations of Narendra Kumar Gupta and Sons HUF and the same is derived out of cash sales of kirana-items as well as from periodic bank withdrawals, thereby, do not warrant invocation of section 69 A of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A deserves to be quashed, since the same has. been passed without obtaining valid approval of Addl CIT /Jt. CIT under section 153D of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that there was a search seizure operation on Faquir Chand Lockers and Vaults Pvt. Ltd. group of cases. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, October and November. He also found that it was not logical that assessee withdrew total amount of Rs. 19,00,00/- from the bank and put in locker. Hence, he rejected this aspect also. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. As regards the rejection of claim of cash from assessee s proprietorship concern, we find that books have not been rejected. It has also not been proved that cash withdrawn is also put to any other use. In such circumstances, there is no reason to reject the source of cash in this regard. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) for the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
