TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e onus on the assessee to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and which was not done by the assessee. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing loss of Rs. 1,26,820 despite the fact that no documentary evidences regarding the loss from M/s Arohi International were produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) being erroneous and on facts be vacated and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. That the appellant craves leave to amend anyone or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise. 6. The first issue vide grounds No.1 and 2 relates to the deletion of addition of Rs. 16,42,480 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit. 7. The facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out in Pandey Group of cases on 19.4.2006. In the said operation, residential premises of the assessee at 133/88-M Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur was covered. During the course of search and seizure operation, cash, jewellery, valuables, various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- -do- Hari Shanker Pandey Rs. 20,000/- -do- Kishan Chand Gupta Rs. 45,000/- -do- Mahesh Prasad Rs.45,000/- -do- P.N. Baipai Rs.20,000/- -do- Pankai Gupta Rs.45,000/- -do- R.S. Tiwari Rs.20,000/- -do- Ramesh Arora Rs.45,000/- -do- Usha Rs.45,000/- -do- Vishwa Nath Gupta Rs.45,000/- 2005-06 Santosh Tripathi Rs.27,000/- 2006-07 Anil Chand Tripathi Rs.25,000/- -do- Wmesh Chand Saxena Rs.38,000/- 2007 -08 Ram Gopal Tiwari Rs.70,000/- 9. On the basis of the above facts, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee did not have the cash balance of Rs. 16,42,480 as on 1.4.2001, as claimed. He, therefore, held that the cash has been introduced by the assessee only to explain the investment of expenses in the subsequent years. He accordingly added a sum of Rs. 16,42,480 to the income of the assessee. 10. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made by the assessee as mentioned in para 11 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) read as under:- "The Ld. A.O. arbitrarily and without assigning any cogent reas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S Certificate dated 12-2-1998 enclosed in the paper book as were submitted before the Ld. AO. Entire jewellery, silver coins & utensils and gold ginnies etc. so disclosed were later sold off for Rs. 24,55,010/- to M/s Panna Lal Mahesh Chand Jewellers. M/s N.B. Impex and M/s P.B. Society Jewelers as per their purchase memos enclosed in the paper book as were submitted before the Ld. AO. The appellant had partly utilized the money by investing in FDR's and balance amount it held as cash in hand which has continued since then. The Ld. AO has formed his belief about non availability of cash in hand with the appellant, mainly due to the reason that the appellant has taken loans/overdrafts facilities from various persons and institutions during various assessment years and no wealth tax returns have been filed. These observations made by the Ld. AO are of little consequence because business dealings can not be merged with personal assets. The Ld. AO has simply presumed and doubted about the existence of the opening cash balance. It is settled principle that presumption howsoever strong can not take place of a legal proof. The Ld. AO could have examined the availability of cash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer had not questioned the brought forward cash balance, so it was not justified to treat the opening balance as unexplained. He also pointed out that it was on record that the business of the assessee was existing and continuing even before the assessment year under consideration, therefore, the brought forward balance was sub-matter of verification in the preceding year. According to the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer ignored the record and documents of the assessee available with the Department and the capital of Rs. 16,42,480 of the assessee was proved as per documents filed with the Department, namely return of income, VDIS certificate and balance sheets of the earlier years. He, therefore, deleted the addition of Rs. 16,42,480 made by the Assessing Officer. 12. Now the Department is in appeal. 13. The ld. D.R. strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and reiterated the observations made by the Assessing Officer in paras 7 to 7.4 of the assessment order dated 31.12.2008, 14. In his rival submissions, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and strongly supported the order of the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ohi International. 17. The facts related to the issue in brief are that the Assessing Officer while disallowing the loss of Rs. 1,26,820 observed as under:- "The assessee vide notice u/s. 153A was required to file his return of income but he filed the photocopy of acknowledgment of return of income without any computation and annexure but it is stated that return filed on 21.01.02 may be treated as return filed in compliance of notice u/s. 153A. From the perusal of the copy of the acknowledgment of the return, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed the loss of Rs. 1,26,820/- from M/s Arohi International. The details of business, final account have not been filed. The assessee has thus not been able to prove loss. In view of the above facts, the loss will not be allowed to reduce from Income from Other Sources and business loss is being treated as Nil." 18. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made before him as mentioned in para 7 of the impugned order are reproduced verbatim as under:- "The assessee was proprietor of the firm M/s Arohi International engaged in the business of trading in Kirana Goods, which was started in the yea....