TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the reasons recorded by Ld. AO for issuance of notice u/s 148 read with S. 147. has not been supplied to the assessee with the notice u/s 148 as well as subsequently which is totally against the settled proposition of law and Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in following the procedures laid down for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, i.e. recording of reasons before issuance of notice, sanction appropriate authority and application of mind which is against the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the same. 5. That, the Ld. AO has erred in making a disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 47,85,384/- without considering the submissions of the appellant that the TDS were deducted wherever required. Also details of receipts of cash on various occasions were provided and Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the same. 6. That the Ld.AO has erred in making a double addition Rs. 30,63,900/- as he failed to appreciate the fact that the turnover of the assessee included cash receipt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of Rs.58,95,562/-, but cash deposit of Rs.96,95,000/- could not be traced either in the turnover of the assessee or in the balance sheet. The Assessing Officer further examined the gross turnover of the assessee of Rs.52,45,940/-. The Assessing Officer also examined that assessee has also shown expenditure of Rs.51,15,384/- and net income was shown at Rs.1,30,556/-. It was also noted that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.30,73,900/- in DCB bank account. The assessee explained that the above cash deposited was from the books of accounts, it was stated that the above amount is covered in the gross receipts of Rs.52,45,940/-, the claim of the assessee is that assessee has received professional fees of Rs.46,45,940/- in cash which has been deposited in the bank account. The learned Assessing Officer did not accept the same. Further, the expense details were also called for and assessee submitted that all these expenses have been incurred in cash and are in nature of legal fees, printing and stationary, office rent and Miscellaneous expenditure. The learned Assessing Officer noted that there are certain payments made through banking channel but the details of individuals to whom p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o believe it and made a Google search to found that Mr. Gurdeep Singh Chadha had died on 17 November 2012, and therefore, the agreement could not have been entered on 19 July 2012. He also alleged that Mr. Gurdeep Singh Chadha is known as Ponti Chadha. He further noted that cash advances were given to the assessee after the death of Mr. Gurdeep Singh Chadha and a confirmation letter dated 1 April 2013 was given after his death. Thus, ld AO held that the cash deposit of Rs 75 lakhs allegedly received from Mr. Chaddha is a concocted story. Therefore, he made an addition of Rs. 75 lacs. 05. With respect to the amount of cash deposited of Rs.30,63,800/- in DCB bank account in account no. (9999), was stated to be out of the books of accounts of the assessee and forming part of income already shown. LD AO disbelieved it and added to the total income. The amount of cash deposited of Rs.2 lacs in individual bank account of the assessee was also added u/s 68 of the act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,59,98,170/- by assessment order dated 28th December, 2018 making following additions:- i. Disallowance of unexplained expenditure debited to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmation is allegedly signed by Mr. Gurdeep Singh Chadha and the date of this letter is 01.04.2013. However, the A.O has clearly demonstrated in the assessment order that Mr. Gurdeep Singh Chadha alias Ponty Chadha had died on 17.11.2012. 4.4 On the basis of above facts, it can be seen that the A.O has given a point by point rebuttal of all the arguments made before him regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 75,00,000/- The A.O has demonstrated by his inquiry and analysis that the Appellant has no explanation regarding the nature and source of this cash deposits. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the A.O on this issue and accordingly, 4.8 The next issue is addition of 30.03.900/- This amount also represent cash deposit in a bank account in DCB Bank The Appellant has tried to explain this cash deposit both before the AO and during appeal that this cash deposit has been shown as business receipt and the cash deposit of 30,03,900/- should be considered to be included in the gross receipt of the Appellant. However, as stated in Para 3.3 above, the very basis of gross receipt of the assessee is itself doubtful and therefore, the same cannot be used to e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n these issues. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities, however, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that a. Addition of Rs. 75 lacs is unwarranted when the confirmation was provided. He submitted that the business of the Wave Films is continuing and therefore the confirmation as well as the transaction is genuine. He further submitted that merely because Mr. Gurdeep Singh Chadha has passed away, the business of that person has not stopped. b. Additions of corresponding sales and cash deposit in the proprietary concern's account, if both added / disallowed, it results into double addition. c. When the assessee agreed for 40% of disallowance as per direction of the learned Assessing Officer what prompted the learned Assessing Officer to disallow the whole expenditure without any reason. d. Assessee explained before the learned CIT (A) that the confirmation was given by Wave Films in the name of Late Shri Gurdeep Singh Chadha and admittedly, it should have been through legal heirs. Further, he stated that the transaction is genuine and the learned Assessing Officer failed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts where narration of such expenditure is provided. Only reason for disallowance is that the names of persons, which mentioned in the bank statements and their identity, could not be verified. 012. Further, with respect to the amount of gross income shown by assessee of Rs.52,45,940/-, the learned Assessing Officer has disbelieved gross receipt. The gross receipts have been stated to be higher than the cash deposit of Rs.30,63,900/- and Rs. 2 lacs. These two items are also separately added by the learned Assessing Officer. Naturally, the gross receipts i.e. Income as well as the expenditure both have been added into the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise, the learned Assessing Officer should have verified independently whether the cash deposit of Rs.30,63,900/- is a sum received by the assessee as professional fees or not. Further, when the amount is deposited in bank account is emanating from books of accounts, further addition of cash deposit amounts to double addition. Ld AO did not carry out this examination. 013. With respect to the advance received of Rs. 75 lacs, the learned Assessing Officer could have asked the assessee to produce details by producing the na....