TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as erred in ignoring the cash receipts corroborated with the cheque received by the assessee and deposited in its bank account, thereby adjudicating by the Id.CIT(A) of document being dumb is gross error of adjudication. 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account of cash receipt as the Page 75 of Annexure BS-10 of the seized material found from the premises of Shri Hitesh Bagdai clearly shows the cash transaction acknowledged by Shri Hitesh Bagdai. The seized documents during the course of search action and as acknowledged by the concerned assessee cannot be treated as dumb document. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Any other ground that the revenue may raise before or during the proceeding before the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the C.I.T.(A) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting addition the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough banking channel which was utilized for purchase of land property will not change merely for the reason that impugned receipt was not found from the premises of the assessee. The AO also alleged that the assessee was in the process of acquiring land property for which it required accounted money in bank account. Thus, the assessee paid unaccounted cash to Shri Hitesh Bagdai and lieu of such cash, received amount in the bank through cheque and shown the same as loan in the books of accounts. Accordingly, the AO treated the amount of cash as per impugned cash receipt as unexplained cash in the hand of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 7. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A) and reiterated its contention that the impugned cash receipt is a dumb document as the same was not signed or written by its director or employee, not found from its premises. Shri Hitesh Bagdai from whose premises such receipt was found categorically denied to have received such cash. There was no other material corroborating the fact that cash was actually paid by the assessee against the transfer of fund through banking channel. The assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfronted this page found & seized during the search while recording statement u/s. 132{4) of the Act on oath, he denied having received any cash from the appellant. The statement was given on oath u/s. 132(4) which is an admissible evidence. There is no material mentioned in the assessment order, which prove this statement of Shri Hitesh Bagdai is untrue. Moreover, survey proceedings were conducted on the same day upon the appellant company and nothing incriminating was found. This is confirmed by the fact that even after conducting suivey u/s. 133A of the Act, the case of the appellant was not taken under mandatory regular scrutiny but reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO relied upon the statement of one of the director of the company Shri Yusufi Ismail bhai who stated at the start of the answer that he does not know about this transaction and other directors knows about it, but payment of cash may happen. The AO ignored the first lines of the statement but relied upon only few last words. Shri Yusufi Ismail bhai was sure that he does not know about the transaction, which has been ignored by the AO but payment in cash may happen was relied upon. Statement or t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestment made by the assessee in the property for which the assessee was requiring the fund in accounting form. Thus, the assessee against the transfer of fund in its bank account has handed over cash to the party. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO. 11. On the other hand, the learned AR before us filed two paper books running from pages 1 to 53 and 1 to 120 and contended that there was no doubt raised by the Revenue on the interest on the loan paid by the assessee. Therefore, the genuineness of loan cannot be doubted. The ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT-A. 12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has received Rs. 2 crores from Shri Hitesh Bagdai through banking channel on 25 and 26th June 2008 and treated the same as unsecured loan in the books of account. The AO treated the same as unexplained money in the hand of the assessee and added the same to its total income. As such the AO has not doubted the identity and credit worthiness of the party but held that transaction of loan is not genuine. The entire basis of treatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to have entered into any cash transaction with the assessee. 12.2 In our understanding, the information contained in the seized document is relevant information which can be the reason to look more deep into the facts to unearth the truth. But solely the receipt can't be the foundation of making the addition in the hands of the assessee. 12.3 Be that as it may, the theory adopted by the AO for making addition in the hand of the assessee based on impugned cash receipt is that the credit of loan from Shri Hitesh Bagadi is not genuine. As such, the theory of the AO is that loan amount credited is nothing but the own unaccounted money of the assessee received in the guise of loan. In this connection, we note that the assessee in its books of account has shown credit of loan through banking channel on 25 & 26 June 2008 and at the end of the year credited interest of Rs. 18,36,892/- only on the same. The assessee on credit of interest also deducted tax at source under the provision of section 194A of the Act. Furthermore, in the immediate subsequent year i.e. in the month of April 2009, the entire loan amount along with interest was repaid to the party through banking channel which ....