TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustained in law. 2. Without prejudice to ground No. 1, the Ld CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.4,21,34,712/-treating the difference between turnover alleged to be available in CBEC data with turnover in books of account as under reported revenue ignoring the submission of appellant. 3. Without prejudice to ground No. 1, the Ld CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.56,65,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of IT Act ignoring the fact that source of above cash deposits during demonetization are out of the earlier withdrawals/accruals of the business supported by the relevant evidences including cash book. 4. Without prejudice to ground No.3, the authorities below have erred both in facts and in law in invoking provisions of sec 115BBE of IT Act on the addition of Rs.56,65,000/- u/s 68 of IT Act without appreciating the fact that the above provision has prospective application w.e.f 01.04.2017 only and therefore, the above provision is not applicable to transaction on the prior dates. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts of the case in not allowing sufficient opportu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... require to hold necessary enquiry to verify the correctness of the information relied upon and the Assessee cannot be asked to impossible task as the Assessee has no excess to the information given to the Department for verifying the correctness or otherwise of the such information. Thus, sought for allowing Ground No. 2 of the Assessee. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the ground No. 1 of the Assessee. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. A.O. while making the addition has relied on the CBEC data which has been reproduced at page No. 2 and 3 of the assessment order. The Assessee was show caused by the A.O. On receipt of the show cause notice, Assessee filed reply before the A.O. wherein contended that the information available regarding the quantum of service is Rs. 8,74,80,924/- is incorrect and contended that the revenue from operation as per P & L account was Rs. 4,53,46,212/- and provided the details to the A.O. The Ld. A.O. without making any enquiry straightaway rejected the claim of the Assessee. It is well settled law that, when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee could do is to offer bona fide explanations for these differential which the assessee did in this case during the appellate/remand proceedings. Fourthly, it hold that the Income-tax Department has all the information and data base in its possession and control the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/Assessing Officer ought to have conducted necessary enquiries to unravel the truth but asking the assessee to do impossible is not warranted. The tribunal finally concluded that no additions to the income are warranted in the hands of the assessee owing to differential in income based on Form No. 26AS and the income as is reflected in the books of account maintained by the assessee." 8. In the present case, the advances of Rs.4,56,05,472/- received from customers was treated as taxable services under the Service Tax Act, but the revenue from these activities is required to be booked as and when the sale is actually executed through conveyance deed. There was sale of the plot booked for Rs.3,48,00,000/- as revenue in P&L account on the ground that on the above sale of plot which is outside the ambit of service tax Act having no impact on service tax liability computatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght for deletion of addition by allowing Ground No. 2 & 3. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Ground No. 2 and 3 of the Assessee. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the Assessee claimed that there was increase of investments in the form of real estate development from 32.30 crore to 31.71 crore during the year under consideration. The Assessee produced the cash book showing the cash withdrawals and cash deposits during the year under consideration. The Assessee deposited total cash of Rs. 1,25,32,000/- and made the cash withdrawal was Rs. 1,48,56,500/- even in the preceding assessment year the amount of cash withdrawals was Rs. 57,50,000/- and deposit of cash was Rs. 55,80,000/-. Assessee has also contended that the cash deposited from April to 08/11/2016 was Rs. 59,80,000/- which is Rs. 8,00,000/- per month and the reason for increasing cash deposit during the demonization was due to exceptional circumstances because of the demonization period that the Assessee had to make deposit of entire cash represented by demonet....