TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Sardari Lai & Co. [2002] 120 Taxman 595. 4.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating a sum of Rs. 584,093/- (out of total payment of Rs. 975,000/- made to broker M/s Bezel Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd) as unexplained and out of unexplained sources and adding the same to the returned income of the appellant. 4.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not taking the receipts as well as payments shown in cash flow chart into consideration. No question was raised on the authenticity of cash flow chart. Moreover, not even a single error/ objection has been pointed out in the Cash Flow Chart which clearly includes the deposit made in cash of Rs. 800,000/- in HDFC A/c from which payment of Rs. 975,000/- was made to broker M/s Bezel Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd. 4.3 That The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in considering only opening and closing balances of cash in hand. She has stated that the appellant used cash in hand amounting to Rs. 190,907/- i.e. the difference between of opening cash in hand of Rs. 216,113/- and closing balance of cash in hand of Rs. 25,216/- during the year. It is absolutely wrong and baseless. 5. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on it was stated before the learned CIT(Appeals) that in rectification order the Assessing Officer has given relief to the assessee. Aggrieved, against this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The only effective ground against the decision of the learned CIT(Appeals) is in respect of sustaining the addition of Rs. 584,093/- on the basis of a new ground. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the learned CIT(Appeals). The submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: "1) That the present case is a small case and addition of only Rs. 584,093/- has been made by the CIT(A), on issues not raised by AO. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating a sum of Rs. 584,093/- (out of total payment of Rs. 975,000/- made to broker M/s Bezel Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd) as unexplained and out of unexplained sources and adding the same to the returned income of the appellant. 2) In the present case, a sum of Rs. 975,000/- was paid to broker M/s Bezel Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd during the year from HDFC Bank A/c of the appellant by cheques. During the year, the appellant had deposited Rs. 800,000/- from time to time during th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as no new issue. The issue related to investment relating to security transactions, for which the case was taken up for scrutiny assessment. 8. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has decided this issue by observing as under: "Discussion & Decision The facts of the case, the submission of the AR and the finding of the AO were examined at length. The brief facts of the case are that on perusal of the broker statement, the AO also noted that the assessee had made investment of Rs. 18,99,028/- on 14.05.2015, which was peak purchase investment during the year under consideration. As the nature and source of investment was not explained by the assessee, the AO treated the said amount as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. Before me, the AR of the appellant contended that AO has erred in making the addition as the broker's account was not disputed and all transactions made were duly verified and accepted by the AO. The AR of the appellant further contended that the appellant was engaged in intra-day trading so the appellant has not made payment for each and every purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash deposits vide order sheet entry dated 18.06.2019, the AR stated that the investment in purchase of shares is being sourced from the cash available in the business. The AR stated that the appellant is maintaining regular books of account that have been duly audited. He submitted that cash-in-hand was available as were the balances in bank account. This claim was examined. It is noted that as per Balance sheet as on 31.03.2015, cash-In-hand available with the appellant is Rs. 2,16,113/- and cash in hand as on 31.03.2016 is Rs. 25,206/-. Scanned copies of Balance sheet reflecting the aforesaid cash-in-hand is reproduced as under (overleaf) ...... From a perusal of the above, it is noted that the appellant used cash-in-hand amounting to Rs. 1,90,907/- (Rs. 2,16,113/- less Rs. 25,2016/-) during the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. This means the appellant's claim that investment purchase of shares was made from cash balances available in business can b allowed only to the extent of Rs. 1,90,907/-. Benefit of bank balances available for investment cannot be allowed as the purchase of shares is being source from cash deposited in the bank account. The AR also po....