AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition made by the Ld. A.O. of credit entries of Rs. 14,78,000/- which includes the cash deposit of Rs. 5,38,000/- though the explanation given by the appellant, which is not correct and bad in law. [2] The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has also grievously erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of share capital amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-though the same has been received from two members which was shown in the detailed submission which has not been considered, and therefore likely to be deleted. [3] The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has also grievously erred in confirming the addition of the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 52,852/- being 10% of the expenses of Rs. 5,28,516/- though the ledger account was submitted during the assessment proceedings has not been considered. [4] The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has also grievously erred in mentioning on Page No. 6 of the Appellate Order that the activity of the appellant's company is agricultural activity which is not correct. The appellant submits that the appellant company is doing the business of developing the seeds of different varieties and doing the trading activity in the same items. [4] The appellant therefore requests your g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5,38,000/-. In absence of any explanation for these credits, you are requested to show cause that why the amount of Rs. 14,78,000/-should not be added to your income u/s 69 of the I. T. Act. 3) In absence of required details, you are requested to show cause why 10% of purchases should not be disallowed and added back to your total income." 3.2 In compliance thereof the aforesaid SCN, the assessee filed return of income on 19-11-2019 and also filed submissions before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the notices u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee by the AO on 22-11-2019 , but there was no compliance by the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 5,38,000/- in its bank account with HDFC Bank 03352560001844 , and total credit in the aforesaid HDFC bank account was to the tune of Rs. 14,78,000/-. The Assessing Officer obtained bank statement from the HDFC Bank directly u/s. 133(6) of the Act, and the assessee was asked to explain the aforesaid credits. The AO observed that in reply dated 11.11.2019 filed by the assessee , the assessee has not made any submissions to explain nature and source of credit entries and cash dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Assessing Officer invoked section 68 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 8,08,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act. With respect to remaining credits of Rs. 1,31,500/- in the Bank account, the AO observed that the assessee has not given any explanation before the Assessing Officer, which led AO to invoke provisions of Section 69 and the same was added to the income of the assessee. 3.4 The Assessing Officer further observed from the Balance Sheet of the assessee Company as on 31st March, 2012, that there are additions to Share Capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- during the year. The assessee was asked by AO to explain the same. The assessee submitted copy of share capital , and stated that no new share capital is introduced during the year. The Assessing Officer observed that the contention of the assessee is not correct. Balance Sheet of the assessee company shows Share Capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 31st March, 2012 , which also shows share capital as on 31March, 2011 of 'Nil'. Thus, the AO concluded that share capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- was introduced during the year under consideration. The AO also observed that the assessee has not discharged its burden to explain the source of sum credited in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count was filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. So far as the receipt of Rs. 8,08,500/-, the assessee submitted that these loans were received from three persons, and confirmations were enclosed. The copy of cash book and bank book was enclosed. The assessee submitted that no interest was paid. The assessee submitted that Rs. 1,31,500/- was also received as unsecured loans, but the Assessing Officer has made the addition. The assessee also submitted that rejection of cash book by the Assessing Officer is illegal. The assessee submitted that Rs. 1,00,000/- Share Capital was received from two members who are Directors of the assessee company, which were received in the financial year 2010-11 . It was submitted that the accounts are prepared from 16th March, 2011( i.e. date of incorporation of the company ) until 31st March, 2012 and the amount was received in 2010-11. It was submitted that since the accounts were prepared from 16th March 2011 to 31st March 2012, the balance as of 31.03.2011 was shown as 'Nil'. The assessee submitted copy of shareholder ledger, copy of cash book and company status in MCA. The assessee submitted that in MCA web site online, the share capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Rs. 6,69,500/- (Cash deposit of Rs. 5,38,000/- and Rs. 1,31,500/- other credits) u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.4 Now before me in the appellate proceedings, written submission has been filed. I have gone through the same. Appellant has mentioned that cash deposit is out of seeds sale. Books of account have not been produced. Cash vouchers are incomplete. They are without address. Similar signature is on all the vouchers. They are simply an afterthought and they have been fabricated. Hence, the cash deposits remain unexplained. Hence, the Assessing Officer is justified in making addition on account of cash deposit. 5.5 The appellant has filed loan confirmation of three parties Arpankumar G Judal Rs. 40000/-, Galabhal Sombhai Judal Rs. 7,50,000/- and Hinaberi A. Judal 18,500/- . I have gone through the loan confirmations. It is all similar. Nature of deposits is not known. Bank statement of three parties have not been given. Creditworthiness is not proved in absence of bank statement of these parties regarding deposit made in the bank account. All the loan confirmations look manufactured and fabricated. Hence, the Assessing Officer is justified in making addition o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year i.e. assessment year 2012-13. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee , Shri S.N. Divatia Advocate submitted that with respect to unsecured loans of Rs. 7,50,000/- , it was submitted that the said unsecured loan was raised by the assessee company from the father of the Director Shri Arpankumar G. Judal namely Mr. Galbabhai Somabhai Judal, and the details were submitted but the same were not considered by the authorities below. It was submitted that Rs. 18,500/-was raised by the assessee from the wife of the Director Shri Arpan Kumar Jugal and the confirmation was submitted. Similarly Shri Arpankuamr G. Judal has given loan of Rs. 40,000/-. The details were submitted but the authorities below have not considered the contentions of the assessee. It was submitted that additional evidences were filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not call for any remand report and did not give any observation that whether he is admitting the additional evidences or not, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It was submitted that all the purchases/sales were made in cash. It was also submitted that chart showing break up of cash deposit source (PB/page 27-28) are filed as additional evid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the assessee , and have simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee while these documents have been claimed by the assessee to have been filed before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Moreover, the father of the assessee Director namely Mr. Galbabhai Somabhai Judal who have advanced loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the assessee company has claimed that he is an agriculturist and into husbandry business as well Retired Pro Vice-Chancellor from Agricultural University, Dantiwada, and the source of advances are from these activities. These aspects were not considered by any of the authorities below and simply additions were confirmed. Similar observations are there with respect to the other loans raised by the assessee company wherein the authorities below have not considered the contentions of the assessee. With respect to cash deposits made in the bank, the assessee has claimed same to be cash sales of seeds. The assessee has filed ledger accounts, but the assessee has not filed conclusive evidence to prove that these purchase and sale of seeds has taken place and that the assessee in the business of trading of seeds. These aspects requires further verification by authorities belo....