TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1), Faridabad]. 2. That the ld. First appellate authority in the present case erred in stating that he has found no infirmity in the action of AO in making addition of ₹ 7,90,000 on account of unexplained cash deposit. 3. That the Assessing Officer has erred in not treating the evidences produced by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the cash credit, as sufficient. 4. That the assessee prays the grant of permission to add, alter, amend, revise, substitute, delete or modify any or all of the grounds of appeal or/and prayer made at anytime on or before the hearing." 2. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that the assessee derives income from trading of shoes. That on 08.05.2006, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....40 to 46 of the assessee's paper book so as to point out that the sum of ₹ 7,90,000/- is duly debited in the assessee's books of account. 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. He stated that the assessee did not produce the books of account in the original proceedings. Even in the remand proceedings, only a part of the books of account was produced. Moreover, in the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer has pointed out several discrepancies in the assessee's books of account. He, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) is quite fair and justified and the same should be accepted. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of ₹ 7,90,000/- was correctly made. It may be mentioned that on the one side the assessing is showing sufficient cash in hand as per document furnished as cash book and on the other side he has shown withdrawal of ₹ 3,00,000/- from the bank on 07.04.2006. Secondly the assessed has shown cash as per document and cheque of ₹ 1,50,000/- was rejected due to insufficient funds. It means that the document furnished by the assessee is not reliable." 6. When the above remand report was confronted by the CIT(A) to the assessee, he also furnished a written submission dated 21.02.2011 which is also reproduced by the CIT(A) in his order. For ready reference, the same is reproduced below:- "1. That the assessee during the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant period in which serial number of all the cash memos were mentioned. The assessee has also submitted copies of acknowledgements of sales tax returns which were submitted to the sales tax department. This sales tax return filed by the assessee including all the sales made by the assessee both cash sales and credit sales. The assessee has requested the ld. AO two more days time to procure the detailed sales tax return from the sales tax department which included both cash sales and credit sales. But the ld. Assessing Officer finalized his report without allowing the assessee two more days time. The copy of reply submitted by the assessee to the ld. AO is attached herewith this reply. 6. Thus your honour shall appreciate that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see but to invest some amount in the company of the party by the assessee." 7. The copy of the cash book for the period beginning from 1st April, 2006 to 8th May, 2006 is also placed by the assessee in the paper book which is at pages 40 to 44 of the paper book. He also gave the summary of such cash book which reads as under:- 8. After the perusal of above material, we find that in the remand report, the Assessing Officer refused to accept the assessee's explanation with regard to availability of cash in hand on 08.05.2006 mainly on the ground that the assessee could not produce vouchers and sales bills prior to the period of deposit of cash in bank. He also observed that the assessee withdrew huge sum of ₹ 3 lakhs from the bank on ....