Ker HC to Municipal Corp.: Provide Complaint No. to Citizens to Report Unauthorized Waste Dumping  ||  JKL HC: Can’t Fastened Liability Based on Chief Exam. Without Affording Opportunity to Cross Examine  ||  Ker HC to State: Consider Representation by CBSE Schools Assoc. Against Proposed Fee Regulatory Comm.  ||  Ker. HC: Printing Agencies Required to Remove Illegal Hoardings Within 7 Days of Notice  ||  Cal. HC: Police Can’t Use Power U/S 160 CrPC to Call/Arrest Someone Unconnected With Alleged Offence  ||  Cal. HC: Acquiring Property in Name of Wife is Not Benami Transaction  ||  Bombay HC Upholds Validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act  ||  Del. HC: Haj Pilgrimage is a Religious Practice  ||  SC: If Sufficient Evidence of Involvement Exists, Person Not Named in FIR can be Added as Accused  ||  SC: Possessory Right of Prospective Purchaser Protected U/S 53A of TP Act    

DCIT vs. Bindal Papers Mills Ltd. - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (02 Dec 2022)

Mere reflecting the unexplained cash in the books of accounts in absence of any supportive documents, cannot be ground for deletion of the addition

MANU/ID/1872/2022

Direct Taxation

In present case, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and trading of paper and paper board. The assessee filed return of income declaring 'NIL' income under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). Subsequently, the assessee revised the return of income again declared 'NIL' income. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. The assessment order came to be passed by making an addition of Rs. 1 crore seized from one Mr. Pankaj Goel which is found to be unaccounted cash of the assessee company. Accordingly, the said cash has been treated as unexplained money and added to the Assessee's total income under Section 69A of the IT Act. Further, the Learned A.O. made disallowance of Rs. 6,23,081 under Section 14A of the IT Act and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,06,23,081.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal. The Learned CIT(A) vide order deleted the addition of Rs. 1 crore made on account of unexplained money under Section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said deletion of Rs. 1 crore by the CIT(A), which was made under Section 69A of the IT Act by the A.O., the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.

Admittedly, the assessee company is the owner of the seized cash, but the assessee has failed to explain with regard to source of the said cash. Therefore the Learned A.O. has rightly made the addition which should not have been interfered by the Learned CIT(A). The assessee has only relied on the cash book which cannot be believed in the absence of corroborative evidence such as bank statement, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account along with tax audit report for the year under consideration. The Learned CIT(A) without appreciating the above facts, based on the statements of the parties and mere relying on the cash book which was not corroborated with other documents, deleted the addition made by the A.O. which cannot be sustained.

When the cash is found with an assessee, it is the duty of the assessee to prove the source of such cash by providing sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion to satisfy the source of such cash. In the absence of such proof, the Revenue Authorities are bound to make additions. Mere reflecting the unexplained cash in the books of accounts in absence of any supportive documents cannot be ground for deletion of the addition. The Learned CIT(A) has committed an error in deleting the addition. Therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) is deleting the addition is set aside and the addition made by Learned A.O. is hereby sustained. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   DELETION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved