TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue are as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in totally deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A on the ground that (i) the cash seized belongs to the Assessee's imprest fund meant for normal course of its business; and (ii) the cash transaction is covered under sub-section (e), (f) and (g) of Rule 6DD of Income Tax without appreciating the fact that such transaction of cash through imprest account has never taken place in the past in its cash book which can prove cash purchases of raw materials, wheat straw. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in totally deleting the addition of Rs. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and trading of paper and paper board. The assessee filed return of income declaring 'NIL' income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee revised the return of income again declared 'NIL' income. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. The assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee, the representative of the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. The assessment order came to be passed on 17/12/2018 by making an addition of Rs. 1 crore seized from one Mr. Pankaj Goel on 05/06/2016 which is found to be unaccounted cash of the assessee company. Accordingly, the said cash has been treated as unexplained money and added to the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in his books of accounts.' The Ld.CIT (A) has ignored the fact that recording of transaction in the cash book was an afterthought exercise to make the cash appear to be genuine source. The Ld.CIT(A) has also erred in totally deleting the addition of 1 crore made on account of unexplained money without appreciating the fact that addition was made u/s 69 A and not u/s 40A(2) of the Act. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the subject amount has been reflected in the cash book of the assessee. Further submitted that the assessee has withdrawn the cash from the bank in different dates which has been accumulated and the said cash was carried by Sh. Pankaj Goel on behalf of the company for purchase of whea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) of the Act was issued to Rakesh Gupta to cross verify the above statement of Rakesh Gupta who stated that 'Sh. Mayank Bindal is his family friend and he had informed on telephone that he is sending his employee with some cash for purchase of husk and asked him to provide necessary accommodation in stay in Ludhiana and further stated that he has no connection or transaction with the cash seized from the employee of the assessee'. 12. During the course of the investigation, the representative of the assessee submitted reply stated that, the said cash seized belongs to the Assessee Company, the said Pankaj Goel is an employee of the assessee company who was authorized for purchase of wheat straw from the state of Punjab and in support of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terial, wheat straw. The assessee has only relied on the cash book which cannot be believed in the absence of corroborative evidence such as bank statement, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account along with tax audit report for the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the above facts, based on the statements of the parties and mere relying on the cash book which was not corroborated with other documents, deleted the addition made by the A.O. which cannot be sustained. 14. The Ld. Counsel has produced the statements of the accounts for the before us, on verifying the details, it is found that, certain cash withdrawals have been made by presenting the cheques during the months of April 2016 to June, 2016. T....