2022 (2) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1961. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, income from business or profession and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 27.02.2017 declaring taxable income of Rs. 5,00,250/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that assessee has declared NIL cash in hand for the F.Y. 2015-16 whereas as per ITR filed for the A.Y. 2016-17 he has declared Rs. 25,40,867/- as cash in hand. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the same, to which, the assessee submitted as under : "......assessee is being handicapped, have to keep cash in hand in order to meet any sudden/unforeseen eventually...." 3.1. The assessee also submitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice and thus such an order is vitiated both on fact and in law. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts by initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 7. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, by completely failing to appreciate that on the facts and circumstances of the case, no such interest coul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sponse to notice under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, however, the A.O. without going through the details, made the addition which is not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed the following summary giving consolidated details of cash account as on 31.03.2016. 5.1. He further submitted that it is not a case of cash deposit where the source of cash has to be explained, but, it is only cash in hand declared by the assessee in the return of income which was disagreed by the A.O. Further the figure of Rs. 11,90,000/- taken by the A.O. is wrong because it is not known from where he has taken this figure. He submitted that the addition was made on irrelevant ground and, therefore, the same deserves to be deleted. ....