Appellant's Appeal Partially Allowed in Tax Dispute

The appellant challenged the re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but later withdrew the challenge. The addition of Rs. 10,16,300 under section 68 of the Act was contested by the appellant, who explained that the cash deposits were from legitimate sources. The Tribunal accepted the explanation, deleting the addition. However, the disallowance of Rs. 1,77,218 from claimed expenditure was upheld due to lack of supporting evidence. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, with the addition under section 68 being deleted, and the disallowance of expenditure being upheld.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs. 10,16,300 under section 68 of the Act.
3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,77,218 out of the expenditure claimed.

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, during the hearing, the appellant decided not to press this ground. Consequently, ground no.1 was dismissed as not pressed.

Issue 2:
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 10,16,300 under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment due to cash deposits exceeding Rs. 10 lakh in the bank account. The appellant explained that these deposits were from cash withdrawals made for daily labor payments and purchase of raw materials. The Assessing Officer deemed the deposits as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The first appellate authority upheld this addition. The appellant argued that the deposits were from cash withdrawals, supported by bank book and cash flow statement. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had sufficient cash withdrawals from the current account, which was not disputed. As the authorities couldn't identify the use of withdrawn cash elsewhere, the explanation that the cash was redeposited for business purposes was accepted. Consequently, the addition under section 68 was deleted.

Issue 3:
The appellant disputed the disallowance of Rs. 1,77,218 from the claimed expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed 10% of the expenditure due to lack of supporting evidence. The appellant failed to justify the expenditure before the authorities. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the appellant couldn't provide sufficient evidence to support the claimed expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance of 10% was deemed justified, and this ground was dismissed.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, with the addition under section 68 being deleted while the disallowance of expenditure was upheld.

---