TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter of the appeal before the ITAT was an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 15.07.2022, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. The brief facts are that the assessee respondent company is engaged in the business of real estate. For the assessment year 2017-18, it filed e-filed return of income on 15.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 1,18,30,950/ -. Its case was picked up for complete scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice(s) were issued/ served upon the assessee along with questionnaire which was duly responded to. 7. The learned Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that on 22.11.2016, in the post-demonetization period, the police intercepted two vehicles carrying cash amounting to Rs. 2,22,76,000/- which was belonging to M/s. Omaxe Ltd., the holding company of the assessee. The said cash was requisitioned under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Income Tax Authority and a survey under Section 133A was also conducted at the office premises of M/s. Omaxe Ltd., wherein certain documents were impounded which contained noting of cash balances as on 8.11.2016, of various group companies belonging to Omaxe group to which the assessee also belonged. 8. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments seized from the office of the assessee's holding company, namely M/s. Omaxe Limited depicting that on 08.11.2016 the assessee had cash in hand of Rs. 3,87,270/- only and that no documentary evidence has been produced by the assessee in support of its claim that the impounded documents contained cash balance available at site offices maintained at the corporate headquarter for various exigencies. 14. In substance; it is the case of the Revenue that the impugned cash deposit has not been satisfactorily explained. The ITAT has from paragraph 9 onwards stated as under :- "9. We have given our careful thought to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has looked into each ground on the basis of which the Ld. AO did not accept the explanation offered by the assessee before him. In para 5.1 of the appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) enumerated five reasons given by the Ld. AO. As regards the observation of the Ld. AO that cash withdrawals made by the assessee are not near the dates of cash deposit and if the assessee had withdrawn cash for wage payments/deals, why such expenses were not incurred, the Ld. CIT(A) considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000 - 2,11,735 11,08,865 February, 2017 11,08,865 - 8,00,000 - 4,20,846 14,88,019 March, 2017 14,88,019 - 10,50,000 - 10,03,432 15,34,587 - 1,94,90,000 32,55,000 3,07,62,112 1.71,01,371 9.1 In para 5.2.2 of his appellate order, the Ld. CIT(A) extracted the set of comparative chart furnished during assessment proceedings as under: - Month Opening cash in hand cash sales cash deposit in bank cash withdrawal from bank Closing cash in hand Apr-15 8639336 5000000 5900000 8653753 May-15 8653753 2975000 9685273 Jun-15 9685273 5260000 10289865 Jul-15 10289865 1300000 11587025 Aug-15 11587025 11910000 22401864 Sep-15 22401864 400000 1150000 22694658 Oct-15 22694658 800000 23770968 Nov till S-Nov-15 23770968 600000 23618404 Apr-16 26653070 700000 26926924 May-16 26926924 8150000 34442969 Jun-16 34442969 1256112 32530311 Jul-16 32530311 628000 31943561 Aug-16 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the high opening cash balance of Rs. 2,66,53,070/- as on 01.04.2016. Therefore, the trend of cash withdrawal and deposit was similar in both the years. Infact, substantial cash withdrawals as well as deposits into the bank accounts is very much a regular feature of the business of the appellant and hence there is nothing unusual in either the cash withdrawals or the cash deposits made during the year under consideration. It is also observed that the appellant has a low or negligible level of cash receipts through sales and also a relatively high level of cash expenses as seen from the comparative charts for both the years. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the assessee has not tried to explain the post-demonetization cash deposits by showing cash sales, which are NIL. A similar trend is observed in the preceding year also wherein the level of cash sales is negligible and level of cash expenses is high. The AO has remarked in a generalized manner that cash is normally withdrawn for immediate expenses such as wage payments, which have not been shown by the appellant. The said observation is not well-founded since high amount of cash expenses have been shown by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2.8. ... The said observation is not rational, firstly since any disclosure made by the flagship company does not automatically translate into any acceptance of tax evasion by the appellant. Secondly, the surrender/disclosure made by the flagship company, M/s Omaxe Ltd, is on account of a totally different issue as evident from the statement of Sh. Rohtas Goel, CMD, Omaxe Ltd" and extracted the relevant portion thereof. 10. It would thus be seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has given cogent reasons with facts available in the records and legal backing to negate the observations and findings of the Ld. AO. The Revenue could not dismantle them by bringing on record any material which has not been considered or analysed by the Ld. CIT(A). The contentions raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 to 6 and reiterated by the Ld. DR before us have no factual and/or legal basis. Endorsing the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and following the decisions (supra) of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 11. Ground No. 7 is regarding additional ground etc. which has not been taken. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 15. On a perusal of the afore....