Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

there are two funds one which is already taxed and other has not and there was remittances during the accounting year for certain sum, the source of which is not indicated then the presumption is that the remittances should have been from the fund which has already suffered tax. It is noteworthy that the Ld. A.O has not rejected the books of accounts and its extracts produced before him. In such situation as held in thecaseof Tolaram Daga V/s CIT 59 ITR 632 such unchallenged account books are prima facie proof of the correctness of the entries made therein. It is also brought to our notice that during the survey proceedings hundis of Rs. 23.65 crores were found out of which hundis of Rs. 7 crores were in the name of the assessee and hundis of Rs. 16.65 crores in the name of BHRC. Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee stated that in the scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act carried out in thecaseof BHRC for Assessment Year 2012-13 the Ld. A.O has accepted the assessee’s contention that the deposit in bank account of BHRC are out of the cash in hand as per the books of accounts of BHRC which in turn was built up on account of recovery of amount advanced as hundi loans against which income was surrendered during survey action. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in thecaseof Jaswant Rai (1977) 107 ITR 477 has held that “it was not open to department to adopt different yard sticks in thecaseof different assesses where the issue of addition to wealth pertained to the same common asset’. Accordingly here also the hundi which were seized in one common survey account of one common parties office location i.e. in thecaseof assessee as well as BHRC of which the assessee is the partner the department should not have taken a different view. We, therefore respectfully following above decisions are of the confirmed view that assessee is entitled for the telescoping benefit of the income surrendered during the year to the cash deposited in the bank account and thus find merit in the contention of the Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee that the source of cash deposits of Rs. 7,34,79,097/- is the maturity proceeds of hundis during the year which were made out of the unaccounted surrendered income offered to tax in the return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13. We therefore set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and find no justification in the action of the Ld. A.O making addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit of Rs. 7,34,79,097/-. We accordingly delete the addition and allow the sole ground No.2 raised by the assessee. 59. The other grounds are general in nature which needs no adjudication. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec.  263 of Income Tax ACt, 1961— Revision —SHRI VINOD BHANDARI vs. Asstt. CIT.[2020] 23 ITCD Online 110 (ITAT-INDORE)