9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has marginal income. We are of the opinion that there is every chance of accumulation of cash from the earlier years, therefore, Assessee having availability of cash in hand which can be corroborated with capital account and statement of affairs for three years. Thus relying on the order of case of Mansukh K. Vaghasia [ 2022 (4) TMI 848 - ITAT SURAT] we delete the addition made u/s 69 of the Act. Addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 - Assessee contended that the said amount was invested by the wife of the Assessee and the same has been added in her hand by the AO u/s 143(3) substantially and made the present addition on protective basis in the hand of the Assessee - Assessee further submitted that the addition made in the hand of the wife of the Assessee has been accepted and the tax has been duly paid by the wife of the Assessee - HELD THAT:- As the substantial addition made in the hand of the Assessee s wife has been claimed to have been accepted and due tax has been paid, the protective addition made in the hand of the Assessee does not survive. Accordingly, the protective addition made in the hand of the Assessee on protective basis is hereby deleted. Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of hearing be allowed to be raised. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return declaring income at Rs. 1,88,850/- which has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at returned income. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, accordingly notice u/s 143(2) and 143(1) along with questionnaires were issued to the Assessee. Assessment order came to be passed on 04/11/2016 by making addition of Rs. 86,20,000/- u/s 69 of the Act of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short) as unexplained investment. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 04/11/2016, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27/02/2018 sustained the addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- which was claimed to have been invested from capital of the Assessee and Rs. 12,00,000/- claimed to have invested by Sh. Munesh Devi wife of the Assessee and deleted the rest of the additions by restricting the addition to Rs. 32,50,000/-. As against the deletion of the additions the Revenue preferred an Appeal before this Tribunal which has been dismissed on account of low tax effect. Further, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A), merely on the presumption drawn, that, the assessee has marginal income without appreciating, that, the assessee is showing the turnover of Rs. 18,35,000.00, and also having accumulated capital from earlier years, therefore, the assessee is having the availability of CASH in hand, as per the capital account Statement of affairs for three assessment years. Here the assessee wants to rely the following decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, as mentioned below: Mansukh K. Vaghasia vs. Income-tax Officer [2022] 139 taxmann.com 84 (Surat-Trib.) [05-04-2022] Swaran Singh vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 159 taxmann.com 777 (Amritsar - Trib.) [23-02-2023] Also, Kindly appreciate that the assessee appellant is 52 year old regular working man having business and agriculture income, resides in the village Mustafabad, Muzaffarnagar, should having his savings and capital, which he has utilized to made the investment in the purchase of agriculture land and residential property. In view of the facts and circumstances, the assessee has cash in hand out of the cash withdrawal of capital from his business and his saving, therefore, the addition sustained by CIT(A) is arbitrary and unjustified. b) Rs. 12,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, it cannot be ruled out the availability of cash with the Assessee. Though, the Assessee has shown turnover of Rs. 18,35,000/-, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that Assessee has marginal income. Considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that there is every chance of accumulation of cash from the earlier years, therefore, Assessee having availability of cash in hand which can be corroborated with capital account and statement of affairs for three years. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Surat Bench in the case of Mansukh K. Vaghasia vs. ITO reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 84 (Surat-Trib.). In similar set of facts, deleted the addition in the following manner: 13. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that assessing officer made addition of Rs. 13,87,000/-, (cash deposited in bank account), as the assessee could not furnish satisfactory evidence regarding his income from job-work and retail trading. We note that asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,230/- and net profit of Rs. 1,58,395/- on his turnover. The net profit ratio comes to 9.88% of the turnover, which is greater than the 8% of profit in cases of section 44AD of the Act. Therefore, we note that based on this factual position, the addition made by the assessing officer should be deleted. 15.Moreover, the assessee submitted memorandum Trading and Profit and Loss account and Balance Sheet. We note that assessing officer has not made any adverse finding in any of these documents even, though all the details were furnished by the assessee before him. The assessing officer ought to have examined all these details and refuted / rejected them, with a cogent adverse findings and discernable line of reasoning, in order to arrive at a conclusion and to make the addition. On the contrary, the assessing officer has just brushed aside these evidences without even a word on why they are not acceptable and how these are fabricated documents. It is a well settled Law that when an assessee has all the possible evidence in support of its claim, they cannot be brushed aside based on surmises. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, we delete the addition. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
