TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,52,270/-. The appellant prays your honour to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by him. The appellant request your honour to kindly add/alter/modify any grounds of appeal on or before the hearing." 2. In this case, there was no appearance from assessee either personally or through his Authorized Representative. The case was heard after recording submissions of the Ld. DR. There was no adjournment petition also filed by the assessee. 3. At the very outset, we find that the appeal is time barred by 60 days. However, this delay has been explained by the assessee at the time of filing of appeal through condonation petition and doctor‟s certificate which are on record. The Ld. DR submitted that going through these documents, he has no objection if the delay is condoned and the case is heard on merits. That on perusal of the aforesaid documents regarding the delay in filing of appeal on record, we find that the delay cannot be attributed to the deliberate action of the assessee or any mala-fide intention on the part of the assessee and the entire delay is explained through doctor‟s certificate which is not disputed by the Depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 14.03.2011. The AR of the appellant has placed on record cash book extract for the day i.e.14.03.2011. The AR has submitted that cash deposit is out of earlier withdrawals from bank on 01.03.2011 of Rs. 5,30,000/-. On careful examination of the cash extract placed on record by the AR and highlighted by yellow mark, it is seen that assessee had enough cash balance of Rs. 7,59,971/- on the date of withdrawal of Rs. 5,30,000/- i.e. on 01.03.2011. There was no need to withdraw Rs. 5,30,000/- and keep it with him till 14.03.2011 and redeposit Rs. 2,00,000/- out of alleged cash withdrawal of Rs. 5,30,000/- made on 01.03.2011. It is unbelievable that assessee really has cash balance and carried it till 14.03.2011. The explanation given by the appellant is therefore not tenable and hence liable to be rejected. I therefore uphold the addition Rs. 2,00,000/-." 6. That on perusal of the relevant records and order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal), we find that Revenue has not disputed the earlier withdrawals by the assessee from the bank. The Revenue has also not disputed that the assessee has enough cash balance as evident at Para 5.3 of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)‟s order. It is the case of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... done, measurement of work etc. As it is a usual practice, a civil contractor makes payment after getting the measurement details of work done through running bills submitted by sub contractor(s). He maintains labour record in support of the labourers employed to ensure escapement of liability in times of accidents and deaths. The AR's statement that nature of business requires cash payments only has no weightage. Legislature has intention of minimizing the cash transactions in the form of enactment of section 40A(3) of the Act. The AR has not brought on record anything to support that the payments claimed to have incurred have really reached to the recipients. No corroborating evidence or confirmations to show that expenditure through self made vouchers is wholly and exclusively laid down for appellant's business purpose. Considering the circumstances of the case, AO's remand report and findings and also considering nature of expenditure booked by the appellant, I restrict the addition made by the AO by way of estimated disallowance to 50%. Resultantly, the addition is restricted to 10% of direct expenses." 9. That on perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(Appeal), i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is dismissed." 11. That on perusal of the documents on records and findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) , it is absolutely crystal clear that the Assessing Officer had given reasonable opportunities to the assessee for explaining the return and substantiating his claim made in the return of income with respect to expenditure. However, the assessee did not attend and avail opportunities of explaining the return before the Assessing Officer. That despite many opportunities, the assessee did not respond to the Assessing Officer. That even before making best judgment assessment, the Assessing Officer had also communicated the said intention of framing assessment u/s.144 of the Act to the assessee. Then also the assessee did not avail this final opportunity. In such scenario, we are of the considered view that the Revenue Authorities have absolutely done correct thing as per process of law enshrined in the Act. Therefore, the observation of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) on this issue is upheld and Ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 12. Ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee pertains to lack of opportunities in final hearing. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) vide Para 5.2 of....