9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that assessee has explained the difference of Rs. 3,99,365/-, and just because the assessee made a wrong statement during the assessment proceedings, stating that the difference belongs to the gift received from his wife, does not mean that the assessee should be punished, particularly when the assessee has direct evidences to explain the difference . Thus addition should not have been made in the hands of the assessee. Hence, this ground of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Dr. A. L. Saini, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Mayur Thakur, CA For the Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short the ld. CIT(A) ], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC ), Delhi, dated 20.05.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), dated 16.12.2019. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the assessment proceedings, you have claimed total sales of Rs. 2,60,09,105/-. Accordingly, vide notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 26.11.2019. you were required to justify / furnish necessary explanation with regard to non-consideration of total turnover of Rs. 2,60,09,105/- and failure to get your books audited. Vide the said notice, you were also required to furnish contra-confirmation of IDEA Cellular reflecting nature of payment made. However, on perusal of your reply, no justification with regard to consideration of total turnover of Rs. 2,60,09,105/- and no justification on non-auditing books of account have been offered. In view of the above, you are required to show cause as to why your total turnover should not be considered at Rs. 2,60,09,105/- and accordingly as to why net profit of 8% of total turnover should not be determined your income for the year under consideration. Further, vide submission dated 07.11.2019, you have submitted month-wise cash sale and cash deposit in a tabular chart. On perusal of the same, opening cash on hand as on 01.04.2016 was shown of Rs. 4,99,520/- and closing cash on hand as on 31.03.2017 was shown of Rs. 3,03,360 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different sales persons. The Assessee also submitted certificate from Vodafone-IDEA Cellular certifying therewith that the assessee is its registered distributor of prepaid recharge in Kosamba of Surat Zone. Further, on verification of bank statements of the assessee, it has been observed that after making cash deposits; assessee has immediately transferred the fund almost every time to IDEA Cellular Ltd. The above facts clearly indicate that the assessee was involved in business of recharge of telecom services. Further, after making cash deposits, almost all the money was transferred to Idea Cellular Ltd. Therefore, assessing officer held that above cash deposit in the various banks were out of his business receipts. 6. However, the assessing officer observed that assessee had carried out business of sale of recharge balance of IDEA Cellular Ltd. However, vide submission dated 07.11.2019, assessee had submitted month-wise cash sale and cash deposit in a tabular chart. On perusal of the same, opening cash on hand as on 01.04.2016 was shown of Rs. 4,99,520/- and closing cash on hand as on 31.03.2017, was shown of Rs. 3,03,360/-. On the contrary, closing cash balance shown by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer, however the Assessing Officer has made the addition to the tune of Rs. 3,99,365/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also pointed out that there is a typographical error in the figure of addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in para no.6.4 stated that negative cash balance is to the tune of Rs. 3,39,365/- and the same should be treated, if any, as unexplained under section 68 of the Act, by the assessing officer. However, finally the Assessing Officer made the addition to the tune of Rs. 3,99,365/-, hence there is typographical error to the extent Rs. 60,000/- (Rs.3,99,365/- Rs. 3,39,365/-). 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although during the assessment proceedings, to explain the difference of Rs. 3,39,365/-, the assessee made a plea that he has received a gift to the tune of Rs. 2,77,120/- from his wife. However, no supporting documents have been furnished by the assessee therefore Assessing Officer made addition. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has not submitted additional evidences, however with the help of the evidences, which were already submitted before the Assessing Officer, the addition so made by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexure 6- Month-wise cash receipts and cash deposits Redrafted by the Assessee (vide Pb.18 to 21), (7) Annexure 7 copy of relevant date s Bank statement (vide Pb.22 to 25), (8) Annexure 8- copy of relevant Bank statement (vide Pb.26), (9) Annexure 9 -copy of Cheque of IT Refund (vide Pb.27). 15. I have gone through the above factual evidences, and I find that the assessee furnished the bank statement and the cash details before the Assessing Officer. I find that certain cheques were dishonoured and there are some contra-entries in the bank statement, which were not considered by the Assessing Officer, for example in the bank statement of State Bank of India, there is a cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 1,01,500/- on 08.04.2016, such cash deposit has been reversed by the bank on 11.04.2016. Such contra-entries getting reflected in the bank statement of State Bank of India. Similarly other cheques deposited to the tune of Rs. 1,01,090/- has not been examined by the Assessing Officer, which is getting reflected on the bank statement. Besides, there is typographical error to the extent Rs. 60,000/-. Considering the above reconciliation, I find that assessee has explained the differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
