TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, Ld.CIT(A) did not examine the complete materials and records available before him in respect of sale, purchase, cash transactions and bank transactions relating to the appellant/ assessee's business as is evident by the observation and findings recorded in this impugned order. The finding recorded as per impugned order are wrong and contrary to the facts available as per documents (i.e. for example the sale of SARIA was done to an identical party whose name and address is appearing on the Invoice itself whereas Ld.CIT(A) wrongly observed that the buyer of the SARlA was not identifiable. The finding given by Ld.CIT(A) are perverse and factually incorrect which render the Order passed by Ld.CIT (A) erroneous and illegal. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, Ld.CIT(A) has erred observing wrong findings which were neither relevant nor supporting upholding the additions of Rs. 10.00 lacs.U/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued and served upon the assessee. Subsequently detailed questionnaires alonwith notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee. In response to these notices, the A.R. of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and requisite details have been filed. The source of income declared is under the head "income from salary" "income from business or profession" and "income from other sources". In this case, an AIR information was received that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- in the bank accounts. The assessee was required to prove the genuineness of these cash deposits. The assessee has explained that the cash of Rs. 9 lacs have been received from the purchase on sale of property. The credit of the same was allowed. Keeping in view of these facts, he completed the assessment proceedings as per the information/details available on record. The assessee has shown short term capital gain of Rs. 6,76,000/-. The assessee purchased a property for 6.24 lacs and sold it at Rs. 13 lacs thereby showing a short term capital gain of Rs. 6.76 lacs. In view of these facts, short term capital gain de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because the transactions of cash in respect of Rs. 10.00 lacs was found duly recorded in the books of accounts which were examined by the Assessing Officer, hence, the provisions of Section 69A were erroneously invoked. He further stated that assessing officer accepted the records and books of account as per assessment order and he has admitted that the assessee has declared income from business or profession having done the detailed examination of these books of accounts wherein the transaction in question were found duly recorded. Hence the allegation that the genuineness of the cash Rs. 1O.00 lacs remained unexplained is prima facie contrary and factually incorrect. Moreover, Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the same. It was further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) also failed to examine the said additions in light of the materials available on records. He ought to have recorded his finding on the violation/application of the provisions of Section 69A when he went to confirm the addition of Rs. 10.00 lacs. In support of his contention, he filed a set of Paper Book containing pages 1 to 57 in which he has attached the copy of acknowledgement of return o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s; copy of confirmation of account of Kanika Rathi for the year 2006-07 from Rathi Re- Rollers (India) Ltd.; copy of statement of account of Sh. Rohit Sharma for AY 2008-09; Copy of statement of account of Sh. Pawan Mittal for AY 2007-08; coy of statement of Account of Sh. Vaibhav Rathi for AY 2007-08; copy of Statement of account of Sh. Vikas Rathi for AY 2007-08; copy of statement of account of Sh. Kush Kumar for AY 2007-08; copy of confirmation from Jagdamba Marbles Ltd. in respect of the agreement of sale entered into for the sale of plot in Haryana alongiwth relevant documents copy of bank statement as on 30.9.2006, 31.12.2006 and 31.3.2007 of Kanika Rathi; copy of letter filed before CIT(A) dated 14.3.2012; copy of remand report dated 16.4.2012 issued by AO; copy of rejoinder dated 21.5.2012 submitted by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) on 31.5.2012; copy of remand report dated 22.11.2012 issued by the AO. We find that in this case assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.07.2007, declaring an income of Rs. 2,65,950/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny as an information was received from the AIR of the assessee th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee submitted its rejoinder dated 21.05.2012 (PB 55 - 56), wherein it was again reiterated that it has been wrongly alleged by the AO in the remand report that the above details were not filed by the assessee before him. This fact has further been appreciated by the AO in the remand report dated 21.11.2012 (PB 57), wherein the AO has stated as under: "The assessee had filed some copies of invoices issued by M/s Rathi Re-Rollers (India) Ltd. and M/s Rathi Steel Trading Co. But since the assessee failed to file the complete details, the A 0 allowed the cash deposits of Rs. 9,00,000/- Rupees Nine lakhs only and the balance amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was added to the income uls 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the AO was correct in disallowing the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in absence of complete submissions of supporting evidence in this regard." 8.1 Therefore, it is clear that all the above details were filed before the AO, which clearly show that the assessee had sufficient cash-in-hand generated out of her trading business, which was further deposited in the bank account. 8.2 We further note that d. CIT(A) has upheld the impugned addition made by the AO by co....