TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om time to time and furnished the requisite details. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that during the course of search operation in the case of the assessee, an amount of Rs.15,57,520/- was found in the office premises, out of which an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs was seized as the assessee could not explain the sources of the same with supporting evidence. A sworn statement of Mr. S. Ganesh, Accountant of the assessee company was recorded on 15.11.2018 wherein he had stated that the physical cash available in the premises is Rs.15,57,520/- and he was unable to explain the discrepancy of Rs.5,06,125/- being the excess cash. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the source of the cash so found. 3.1 The assessee in response to the same filed the following explanation which has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order: "A sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was seized from the business premises of Ankit Biscuits Pvt Ltd. The balance as per books of account as on 15.11.2018 was a sum of Rs.10,51, 395-. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was kept in the office of Sri Vimal Agarwal, Director, by his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccountant of the appellant company was recorded wherein he was asked about the discrepancy pertaining to presence of excess cash of Rs. 5,06,125/- and he could not explain the same. During the course of assessment proceedings, when the appellant company was asked to explain the sources for cash of Rs. 15,57,520/- found during the course of search operation, the appellant stated that an amount o? Rs. 10,51,395/- pertains to the cash balance of the appellant company as per the cash book and Rs. 5,00,000/- belong to the Smt. Greeshma Agarwal, which was kept with her husband, Sri Vimal Agarwal, director of the appellant company. The cash found at the premise was more than what was available as per books, this is a discrepancy but that does not mean entire cash found in the premise can be called unaccounted, especially when no discrepancy has been found with regard to the cash book and its recordings. It is observed from the assessment order that, the Assessing officer had largely discussed about the excess cash of Rs. 5,06, 125/- present over and above the cash book balance on the date of search and had not pointed out any discrepancy with regard to the cash available....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed u/s 144(1)(b) dt.28.03.2019 passed by the learned Assessing Officer is not justified and incorrect both on facts and in law, to the extent appealed against. 2. The CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without giving an opportunity that too after a long gap since the last notice given on 24.12.2020 and that too when the faceless appeals are being enabled only since past 2-3 months. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have studied the detailed statement of facts and the grounds appealed which are more legal in nature, along with the Assessment Order before dismissing the appeal in a perfunctory manner. 4. The CIT(A)/Assessing Officer is not justified in estimating the income at 10% of the total sales merely because the Appellant agreed for estimation, and ought to have estimated the income at 8% especially when the Appellant is supplying the ready-mix concrete to construction industry. 5. The CIT(A)/Assessing Officer is not justified in not allowing the deduction of depreciation from the estimated net profit, ignoring CBDT instructions. 6. The CIT(A)/Assessing Officer ought to have allowed set-off of brought forward business losses ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case made addition of Rs.15,57,520/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act on the ground that cash of Rs.15,57,520/- the same was found in the office premises of the assessee during the course of search and the assessee could not explain to his satisfaction regarding the source of such cash. We find the learned CIT (A) deleted an amount of Rs.10,51,395/- being the cash balance available on the date of search in the books of account of the assessee and sustained the balance amount of Rs.5,06,125/- the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs was kept by Mrs. Greeshma Agarwal, wife of the Director Shri Vimal Agarwal, in the office premises out of the amount withdrawn by her from Nirmay Constructions LLP where she is a partner....