9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted and brought to tax by the AO; but the said business transactions explaining the availability of cash-in-hand with the assessee as on 08.11.2016 is not to be accepted. A.O cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time, i.e., accept the book results (as disclosed by the assessee company based on its audited books of account), and at the same time, reject the duly accounted business transactions disclosed in the books of accounts which revealed that the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee company were sourced out of the cash-in- hand available with it as on 08.11.2016. The fact as can be gathered from a perusal of the cash book of the assessee company, reveals that the availability of cash-in-hand of Rs. 12,00,442.54 as on 08.11.2016 is found to be in parity with the cash-in-hand available with the assessee both during the pre-demonetization and post-demonetization period, a fact which further dispels all doubts as regards the claim of the assessee company that the cash deposits in its bank accounts during the demonetization period was sourced from the cash-in-hand available with him as on 08.11.2016. No finding no justification on the part of the AO in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. AR had drawn my attention to the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay a/w an affidavit of Shri. Aayush Agrawal (supra) supporting the facts therein stated. 3. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short DR ) though submitted that the delay involved in filing of the present appeal was inordinate but considering the reasons leading to the impugned delay candidly did not seriously object to the request for condonation of the same by the assessee applicant. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the delay of 289 days involved in filing of the present appeal. Although the delay of 289 days involved in filling of the present appeal is inordinate, but at the same time, considering the reason which had led to the same, I am of the view that the same had occasioned on account of bonafide reasons and compelling circumstances. I, thus, considering the aforesaid facts have no hesitation in condoning the delay of 289 days involved in filing of the present appeal. 5. Succinctly stated, the A.O observed that though the assessee company during the subject year had made cash deposits in its bank accounts but had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rore (approx.). In reply, the assessee company produced the books of accounts, bills and vouchers as well as sales register and purchase register. Also, the A.O recorded on oath the statement of Shri. Aayush Agrawal (supra) on 14.12.2019. Elaborating on the reason for not filing the return of income for the year under consideration, i.e AY 2017-18, Shri. Aayush Agrawal (supra) stated before the A.O that as his father Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal (supra) was taken seriously unwell with chronic kidney disease and had to undergo a kidney transplant, therefore, it was for the said reason that unlike the preceding and succeeding years the return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2017-18 had remained omitted to be filed. Apropos the source of the cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessee company, it was stated by him that the same was sourced from the business receipts of the assessee company i.e. receipts gathered from manufacturing and trading of aluminium sections and trading of flour. Also, the assessee company in order to dispel all doubts as regards the authenticity of its claim produced bills and vouchers before the A.O. However, the A.O observed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epetitive noncompliance has shown complete lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The appellant did not bother to give even the basic details in support of its claim in the appeal memo. Hence, in view of the total non-compliance/non prosecution of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated and disposed off as under, ex-party, primarily on the basis of documents/information available on records. 5.2 At the outset, in view of the facts of the instant case, this appeal is liable to be dismissed in terms of the ratio of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court which has held in the case CIT v. B. N. Bhattarcharjee and Another (10 CTR 354) that an appeal means an effective appeal and that to prefer an appeal would mean effectively prosecuting an appeal Purposefully and constructively interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it and if a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the fray. 5.3 It is pertinent to add here that laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known maxim Vigi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Assessing Officer has not given effect to the unabsorbed depreciation allowances as per law. In the instant case the appellant had not filed its return of income for relevant assessment year. Further, the appellant has not filed any application along with evidences of unabsorbed depreciation during the assessment proceedings. Perusal of the order appealed against reveals that, in the statement on oath recorded u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, Sh. Aayush Agrawal the director of the company has also not raised the issue of unabsorbed depreciation. 5.6.2 Further, during the course of appellate proceedings eleven hearing notices were issued but the appellant did not comply to any of the eleven notices. Thus, on account of not filing of return by the appellant, it is deemed to have not claimed the unabsorbed depreciation. The appellant has also failed to give any details of unabsorbed depreciation allowance during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. In view of the above, and in absence of any arguments/ evidence on the part of the appellant, I have no other option left but to go along with the findings of the AO in this regard. 5.6.3 Accordingly, first ground of appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations herein-above. 6.0 Thus, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 8. The assessee company being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 10. Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ld. AR for the assessee company, at the threshold of hearing, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs. 12.21 lacs (supra) made by the A.O u/s. 68 of the Act was based on perverse observations. The Ld.AR submitted that while for the cash deposits in made during the demonetization period in the subject bank accounts held by the assessee company with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Raipur aggregated to Rs. 11.96 lacs, viz. (i) bank account No. 6597000600024901 with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Raipur: Rs. 4,66,000/- and (ii) bank account No. 6592000100108401 with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Raipur: Rs. 7,30,000/-, but the same was wrongly taken by the A.O at Rs. 12.21 lacs. Elaborating further on his cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to how he could have rejected its explanation that the cash deposits of Rs. 11.96 lacs (supra) in its subject bank accounts were sourced from the business transactions forming part of the same books of accounts. The Ld. AR further submitted that as both the bank accounts under consideration, viz. (i) bank account No. 6597000600024901 with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Raipur; and (ii) bank account No. 6592000100108401 with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Raipur-, formed part of the balance sheet of the assessee company for the year under consideration, therefore, it was difficult to fathom as to how the cash deposits made in the same could be held as having been sourced from unexplained sources. The Ld. AR to fortify his claim that now when the A.O had not rejected the books of account and in fact, had accepted the books results, therefore, there was no justification for him to have rejected the claim of the assessee company that the cash deposits in its subject bank accounts were sourced out of its business receipts, had relied on the order of the Tribunal in the cases of, viz. (i) ACIT-1(1), Bhilai Vs. Nitin Sankhala, ITA No.98/RPR/2020, dated 08.06.2023; and (ii) Rahul Cold Storage Vs. ITO, War ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -hand with the assessee as on 08.11.2016 is not to be accepted. I am unable to fathom the aforesaid self-contradictory stand of the AO. 14. As brought to my notice by the Ld. AR, the assessee company had cash-in-hand of Rs. 12,00,442.54 (closing balance) available with it prior to start of the demonetization period i.e as of 08.11.2016. Considering the factum of the availability of the sufficient cash-in-hand with the assessee company as on 08.11.2016 i.e. during pre-demonetization period, there could be no justification for the A.O after accepting the book results of the assessee company to draw adverse inferences as regards its claim that cash deposits in its bank accounts (forming part of its books of account), viz. (i) bank account No. 6597000600024901 with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Raipur: Rs. 4,66,000/- and (ii) bank account No. 6592000100108401 with Karnataka Bank Ltd., Raipur: Rs. 7,30,000/-, aggregating to Rs. 11.96 lacs (supra) were made out of unexplained sources. The A.O cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time, i.e., accept the book results (as disclosed by the assessee company based on its audited books of account), and at the same time, reject the duly acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k results, which, in fact, supports the assessee s claim. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, I am unable to comprehend that now when the assessee s explanation that the cash deposits of Rs. 46.55 lac (supra) were sourced out of its duly accounted cold storage rent receipts was not accepted by the A.O, then, on what basis he had accepted its book results and framed the assessment. In case, the view taken by the A.O is approved, then the same would lead to an incongruous situation, wherein the A.O while framing assessment had rejected the assessee s claim that the cash deposits of Rs. 46.55 lacs (supra) in its duly accounted bank accounts was made out of the cash in hand as was available with it out of the cold storage rent receipts, but to the contrary, while framing the assessment had simultaneously subscribed to its claim by accepting the disclosed cold storage rent receipts out of which the cash deposits in question were claimed by the assessee to have been sourced. The A.O could not be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. If the assessee s claim that the cash deposits in question were made out of its duly disclosed cold storage rent receipts was not to be accepted, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
