2024 (1) TMI 797

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2017 against the order of assessment passed u/s 153A/ 143(3) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 31.03.2016 by DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi and CIT(A)-31, New Delhi against the order of penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) dated 28.03.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in the quantum appeal in ITA No. 6922/Del/2017 is with regard to addition made on account of cash deposit in the sum of Rs. 41,16,000/-. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 4. The assessee is an individual. A search and seizure operation was carried out u/s 132(1) of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the imprest account. The assessee also clarified to the ld AO that actual cash deposit is only Rs. 2.77 crores and not Rs. 40 crores mentioned in the show cause notice. The ld AO however, did not heed to the aforesaid factual explanation of the assessee and proceeded to treat the cash deposit made in the bank account on the following dates as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act:- 03.04.2012 Rs. 31 Lakhs 04.04.2012 Rs. 10 lakhs 03.05.2012 Rs. 16,000/- Total Rs. 41,16,000/- 5. The assessee reiterated his stand that he had opening cash balance of Rs. 2,08,40,782/- in the imprest account as on 31.03.2012 and the sum together with withdrawals made explained the source of cash deposit made in the bank account. The ld C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1.03.2012, on the asset side, a sum of Rs. 2,08,40,782/- was shown under the head current asset as Surendra Kumar Gupta imprest. All these facts collectively could prove indeed have sufficient cash balance which explained the cash deposit made in the bank account. Hence, there is absolutely no case for making any addition on account of cash deposits in the hands of the assessee. Hence, we direct the ld AO to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs. 41,160,000/- on account of cash deposit. 7. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are challenging the validity of assumption u/s 153A of the Act. No arguments were advanced by the ld counsel for the assessee before us. Hence,....