Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the ld.CIT(A)). Assessee has filed paper book containing more than 53 pages to prove the agricultural income, rental income as well as the commission income and prayed us to remit back issue to AO, since the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the AO. Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of Tin Box Company [ 2001 (2) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] we restore the addition back to the file of the JAO. Since, the revenue is not in appeal, we confirm the CIT(A) action of deleting Rs. 4,84,075/-. We direct the assessee to file all the documents to prove the agricultural income, rental income and commission and if the AO finds that the explanation given by the assessee is correct, then no addition may be made or else addition m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the said cash but could not furnish any documentary evidence for the same. Since, the assessee failed to substantiate the source for cash, the same is treated as unexplained money. The case was notified to the Circle vide notification no. 20/2020-21 in C.No.831/PCIT-8/Cent Decent/2020-21 dated 29.03.2021. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 and issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 26.08.2021. Later, the assessee filed return of income but Assessing Officer noted that e-verification was pending and therefore notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued. 4. And the Assessing Officer noted that during the course of examination u/s. 131 of the Act, the assessee h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ow was provided to show that the cash was available at the time of search which belongs to the family members (Supra). However, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order by sustaining the addition of Rs. 22,89,925/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book containing 53 pages wherein the assessee had filed a cash flow statement of G.Elumalai, G.Elumalai HUF, E.Babu and E.Janaki Ammal from 01.04.2018 to the date of seizure i.e. up to 13.07.2019 and stated that the cash available was Rs. 29,09,042/- as against the amount allowed as cash held by the ld.CIT(A) of Rs. 4,84,075/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the commission of Rs. 3 lakhs rental income of Rs. 8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ASSESSING OFFICER Cash on hand on 13.7.2019 -2,40,550 2,88,782 5,74,993 -1,39,150 4,84,075 7. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the following income which was available as cash on hand as on 13.07.2019 as under: Details G. Elumalai Elumalai (HUF) E. Babu E.Janaki Ammal Total Commission 3,00,000 3,00,000 Rental income 3,30,000 1,50,000 3,67,500 8,47,500 Agricultural income 20,000 4,00,000 3,15,000 4,40,000 11,75,000 TOTAL 6,50,000 4,00,000 4,65,000 8,07,500 23,22,500 8. According to the ld.AR, the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee has sufficient source of the cash as explained supra and therefore prayed that the addition sustained by the ld.CIT(A) be deleted. 9. Per contra, the ld.DR relying o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se, according to the ld.AR, the assessee had rental income of Rs. 8,47,500/- and commission/brokerage from real estate transactions of Rs. 3 lakhs which totals to Rs. 23,22,500/-, which will be sufficient to explain the balance amount of Rs. 22,89,925/- (sustained by the ld.CIT(A)). The assessee has filed paper book containing more than 53 pages to prove the agricultural income, rental income as well as the commission income and prayed us to remit back issue to Assessing Officer, since the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), we restore the addition of Rs. 22,89,925/- back to the fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates