9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionally reduced the cash balance by passing accounting entry by crediting cash by Rs. 15.50 lacks and debiting Rs. 15.50 lacks to cash seized in the search on 18.06.2016. We find that the ld. Pr.CIT has not disputed any other amount deposited in the form of SBN except the cash of Rs. 15.50 lacs. We further find that the department has already made addition of Rs. 15.50 lacs in the hands of Director of the assessee. Assessee vehemently submitted that when such amount was added in the hands of Director of the assessee, a reverse zonal entry was made to treat the said amount in the hands of Director of assessee. AR further stated that such addition was not disputed by the Director of the assessee in further appeal. AR before us raised a very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad u/s 263 of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 is erroneous, contrary to law, equity, facts and circumstances of the present case and the materials available on record. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act when order passed by assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. It is prayed that order passed by Learned Principal Commissioner may please be quashed. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The whole cash deposit of Rs.15.50 lacs should have been added under Section 68 and charged by applying Section 115BBE of the Act. On the basis of such observation, the ld. Pr. CIT issued show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act. The contents of show cause notice is extracted in para 4 of order of ld. Pr.CIT. The assessee filed its reply through ITBA Portal on 23/03/2022. In reply, the assessee stated that a search action was carried out at the office premises of assessee as well as at the residence of its Director Shri Kamal J Shah on 18/06/2013. During the course of search, a cash of Rs. 15.50 lacs were seized by searched party from the residence of Director of assessee. During the course of search, the assessee has taken stand tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The assessee further submitted that Rs. 15.50 lacs are already taxed in the hand of Shri Kamal J Shah in the assessment order for the A.Y. 2014-15 as per stand of the department. Thus, the department cannot hold the view that the cash seized from the assessee company and it was not available with it for depositing in bank, which is contrary to the stand of department that such cash belongs to Shri Kamal J Shah. Thus, the assessment order in case of assessee company is not prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, the twin condition arse not satisfied in the present case. 3. The ld. Pr. CIT after recording the contents of reply of assessee held that a question was whether the IT department returned the money to the assessee w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was already added in the hands of Director of assessee in assessment order or A.Y. 2014-15 passed under Section 143(3) dated 28/03/2016. Once such addition was made, the Director accepted such addition and no further appeal was filed despite such addition. The assessee initially made journal entry on 01/04/2016 in assessee company. However, when such amount was added in the hands of Director of assesse, such zonal entry was reversed. Though, there is no reference of examination of such issue by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, yet the Assessing officer passed the assessment order after satisfying that such cash seized during search action has already been added in the hands of Director of assessee. The ld. AR for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee specifically stated that the cash of Rs. 15.50 lacs were of the assessee-company. And the assessee notionally reduced the cash balance by passing accounting entry by crediting cash by Rs. 15.50 lacks and debiting Rs. 15.50 lacks to cash seized in the search on 18.06.2016. We find that the ld. Pr.CIT has not disputed any other amount deposited in the form of SBN except the cash of Rs. 15.50 lacs. We further find that the department has already made addition of Rs. 15.50 lacs in the hands of Director of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that when such amount was added in the hands of Director of the assessee, a reverse zonal entry was made to treat the said amount in the hands of Director of assessee. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
