TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unexplained cash transaction recorded in Annx-'D' impounding during the survey operation, in spite of the facts on records that the assessee has failed to produce any admissible evidence during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO as required. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,33,76,751/- on account of unexplained cash receipts recorded in Ann-'A' impounding during the survey operation, during relevant periods in spite of the facts on records that the assessee has failed to produce any admissible evidence during the course of assessment proceeding before the AO. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sponse to the notice issued, assessee's AR attended the proceedings from time to time and represented the case and the books of accounts with bills and vouchers were produced which were test checked. At the business premises of the assessee, a survey operation was carried out on 07.08.2012 and some books of account and documents were impounded viz. loose papers, Yadaast memo, cash book at Annexure-I of Annexure 'A', Register being Annexure-2 of Annexure 'B' showing details of payments made during the period 1.4.2011 to 31.1.2012, Annexure 'C' showing cash payment made in violation of section 40A(3) TDS provisions, Annexure 'D' showing some receipts and payments details recorded on page 24 of Annexure -18 which were impounded by the survey p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of Rs. 14,65,18,140/- as against Rs. 7,13,88,960/- disclosed by the assessee and made additions of Rs. 1,37,35,000/-; Rs. 3,33,71,791/-; Rs. 1,25,85,510/- and Rs. 1,54,36,879/- made vide para no. 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the assessment order 25/3/2015 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Against the assessment order dated 25.3.2015, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who after calling the Remand Report dated 21.3.2017 which was obtained from the Assessing Officer, vide his impugned order dated 09.05.2017 has deleted the aforesaid additions by partly allowing the appeal of the Assessee by observing that the assessee has filed all the details which are being filed before the AO like detailed calculation in respect of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and found that Ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issues in dispute and deleted the additions. 6.1 So far as addition of Rs. 1,37,35,000/- is concerned, we note that the assessee has surrendered Rs. 5,28,50,428/- in the assessment year 2012-13 and a sum of Rs. 2,12,96,080/- in the assessment year 2013-14 which the Ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration that while making the offer of Rs. 5,28,50,428/- as additional income by the assessee, entries in Annexure-D of the impounded material has also been considered and after taking into consideration the additional income offered by the assessee which was on the basis of peak level of Hulyati book, which fact has not been disputed by the AO in the remand report, thus, the addition of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- as expenses and this submission has not been disputed by the AO in the remand report. Hence, by relying upon the decision of the CIT vs. Alfa Toyo Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 427, of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it has been held that the provision of section 40A(3) does not apply to repayment of loan in cash because the loan repayment is of capital nature. Hence, the addition of Rs. 1,28,85,510/- was not justified and therefore, has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part. Hence, we affirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and dismiss the ground no. 3 raised by the Revenue. 6.4 As regards addition of Rs. 1,54,36,879 is concerned, we n....