TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961 without there being any valid reason leading to belief of escapement of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer (i) making an addition in a sum of Rs. 6,71,545/- wrongly invoking section 68 of the Act treating cash deposits in bank as unexplained income (ii) charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. All the above actions being erroneous unlawful and untenable it is prayed that the same must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief." 2.1. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing did not press ground of appeal No. 1 for which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the submission of the AR and the finding of the AO were examined at length. The brief facts of the case are that the AO was in receipt of information that assessee had deposited Cash amounting to Rs. 2 lacs or more with the HDFC Bank during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 and that the assessee had not filed its return of income even after having been given sufficient opportunity for filing the same. Accordingly, re-assessment proceedings were initiated and notice us/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2018, after seeking and being accorded approval of the Competent Authority. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AR was required to explain the deposit of cash of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- on 11.01.2011 and Rs. 3,00,000/- on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cash deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/- was sourced from this amount of cash in hand. The appellant submitted that the AO had wrongly taken cash in hand of 31.03.2009. The claim of the appellant was examined. To substantiate his claim of cash in hand, the AR of the appellant produced the ledger account, sale account and cash flow statement for A.Y 2009-2010. The AR of the appellant was required to furnish a copy of the ITR for A.Y 2010-11 to substantiate the details of sales/purchases/cash-in-hand to further substantiate the ledger accounts and cash flow statements furnished. However, the AR admitted that no return had been filed for the said year, although return for A.Y 2009-10 was filed. The appellant contended that the entries of purchases matc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant. I draw strength from the unambiguous provisions of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act which clearly states as under: Section 114(g) in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872] (g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; The Apex Court in the case of Keshav Mills & Co (56 ITR, 365) has held that: Parties must lead evidence before the ITQ i.e. at the assessment stage. In the light of the above detailed discussion and in the light of the fact that the appellant was unable to substantiate the claim of cash in hand or sales to explain the source of Rs. 6,71,545/- of cash deposited in the HDFC bank account of the....