Shri Manojkumar Manubhai Patel, Vadodara V. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara

ITA 64/AHD/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Manoj Kumar Manubhai Patel, who appealed against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, which included additions to his income for undisclosed cash and cheque deposits in a savings bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these deposits as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee argued that these deposits were from business sales and were reflected in VAT returns. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that while some deposits could not be treated as income, a negative cash balance indicated undisclosed income, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135624 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 271B; 44AB

Judgement Text

आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपी अपीअपी अपीलीय लीयलीय लीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 64-65/AHD/2020 िनधा रण िनधा रणिनधा रण िनधा रण वष वष वष वष /Asstt. Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri Manoj Kumar Manubhai Patel, At & post village Karakhadi, Near Vav, Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. PAN: AMYPP4940J Vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(3)(2), Vadodara. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R Revenue by : Shri SanjayKumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/01/2023 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/04/2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned two appeas have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Vadodara, even dated 10/10/2019 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in- after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 2 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹19,66,992/- representing the cash and cheque deposits in the undisclosed saving bank account. 3. The necessary facts arising from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee in the present case is an individual deposited cash cheque in the saving bank account of Rs. 19,66,992.00 which was not disclosed and explained by the assessee. Thus the AO treated the same as income from the undisclosed sources and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) 5. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) fairly admitted that the saving bank account was not disclosed in the income tax return. But the contention of the assessee is that whatever amount has been deposited in the form of cash/cheque in such saving bank account was utilized for the following purposes: The amounts deposited in Karkhadi Branch is utilized as under: a) Transfer to Atladra Branch Rs.10,46,000/- b) Payments to suppliers of bricks, sand, kapchi etc. Rs.2,21,688/- c) Cash withdrawals made for re- deposition/expense. Rs.3,51,000/- d) Bank charges Rs.54/- e) Balance with bank Rs.4,07,401/- Total Rs.20,26,143/- 5.1 The assessee further submitted that the money was also transferred from the saving bank account to the current account maintained with the state Bank of India which was ultimately utilized for the purpose of the business. As per the assessee, the amount deposited in the current bank account was utilized for the following purposes: Likewise, the amounts deposited in Karkhadi Branch is utilized as under: a) Amount paid to Gujarat Ambuja Ltd. Rs.38,48,984/- b) Payments to suppliers of Rs.1,36,590/- ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 3 bricks, sand, kapchi etc. c) Cash withdrawals made for expense Rs.30,818/- d) Bank charges Rs.1,122/- e) Withdrawal made by Mr. Manoj Patel Rs.16,007/- f) Balance with bank Rs.93,886/- Total Rs.41,27,407/- 5.2 Thus, it was submitted by the assessee that the amount deposited in the bank account being saving and current were representing the amount of sales deposited therein which were substantially matching with the VAT returns, sales bills. 5.3 Besides the above, the assessee also submitted that in the immediate succeeding assessment year 2010-11, the amount deposited in the impugned saving bank account was treated as part of the turnover for calculating the applicability of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271B was also initiated. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the revenue in one year is treating the amount of deposits in the impugned saving bank account as turnover but in the year under consideration, the revenue is treating the same as unexplained investment which is contrary in the given facts and circumstances. 5.4 However, the AO in the remand report dated 6 th June 2014 submitted that the impugned bank account was not disclosed by the assessee and the source of the deposits in the same bank account was also not explained with the supporting documents. Likewise, the AO in another remand report dated 8 th June 2015 also pointed out certain defects in the additional documents filed by the assessee in the form of cash book, financial statements. According to the AO, there was mismatch in the capital account shown by the assessee, cash balances, the details in the sales bills and difference in the amount of income shown under the head discount. Likewise, there was the negative cash balance in the cash book filed by ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 4 the assessee amounting to ₹1,32,728/- and such a difference was not explained by the assessee. 5.5 The assessee in response to the remand report vide letter dated NIL filed his rejoinder with detailed representation with regard to the defects pointed out by the AO as discussed above. In sum and substance, the assessee contended that the accountant was not keeping the books of accounts regularly as per the required standards. Once the matter reached to the learned CIT(A), the assessee got prepared proper books of accounts and therefore the fresh books of accounts should be considered after ignoring the earlier details prepared and filed by the assessee. However, the learned CIT(A) disagreed with the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 8. I have considered the facts of the case and gone through the assessment order and submission of the appellant. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of supply of building materials like cement, sand, concrete, bricks etc. to builders / customers. This business is conducted in the name of M/s. Maa Enterprises. He has also started the business of supply of skilled and non-skilled labour in the name of M/s. Akshar Services. 8.1 On the basis of A.I.R. information, the Assessing Officer found that there is a cash deposit of Rs.19,66,992/- for A.Y, 2009-10 in the Saving Bank Account No. 30086295853 with S.B.I., Karakhadi Branch, Tal. Padra. This amount of deposit was explained to be representing the sales of building material product which was sought to be supported by submission of cash flow and the accounts. These accounts were found to be defective as the appellant was not disclosing all the bank accounts maintained by him and that the turnover disclosed was much lesser than the amount of total deposits in the various bank accounts. 8.2 I have considered the findings of the A.O. in the assessment and remand proceedings as well as the submission of the appellant and find that in the assessment made, the additions are primarily for the cash amounts deposited in the bank accounts which is now sought to be explained by the appellant with the assistance of the revised books of accounts. AR vehemently argued that cash deposits in bank A/c were part of sales of cement. In defense, AR submitted to VAT return before A.O. But said return did not reflect the complete turnover as has been alleged by AO. A copy of VAT return, showing turnover even did not match its own books of account. Therefore, this claim is quite unconvincing. 8.3 Another defense of AR is the ledger A/c of party in the books of Ambuja Cements Ltd. AR again fails to substantiate the total purchase from Ambuja and that reflected in books of account. Even if purchase ledger is believed then corresponding debit entry from bank accounts is to be substantiated. Nor AO has combined with AR's submission. AR failed to quantify quantum of cement sold, amount received and quantum of cement purchased and amounts paid from bank a/c. Without specific data, AR's arguments cannot be believed. This fact further deepens when AO has categorically pointed out that SBI A/c 30086295853- Karkhadi Branch was never disclosed in the books. Most grievous finding by AO is that cash deposited in bank at different location form all over India. AR could not ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 5 explain such behavior in A/c. AR himself admits that originally P/L and Balance Sheet were prepared by an accountant who was not much aware about accounts. However, I am not ready to buy these arguments as books of accounts were signed by both party and accountant. Hence -the appellant cannot blame the accountant. Cashbook of the appellant is found to be negative. AR himself admits that he has no explanation for negative cash balance. Even cash balance at the end of year i.e. 31.03.2009 differs. Original P.L., Balance sheet and revised P/L and Balance sheet produced before appellate proceeding differ in many ways: i) Opening capital balance in year 2009-10 was Rs.2,43,151/- when in revised bank, capital stand at Rs.7,11,004/-. AR somehow has tried to add agriculture income of Rs.80,000/- and cash in hand which was erroneously left to be added originally. However, once again I am unconvinced with this theory. Only requirement of the appellant was to show sources of cash deposit in undisclosed bank A/c. Firstly, appellant remained silent during assessment proceedings, later revised his books with concocted story of accounting error, shifted burden of mistake towards accountant and finally started a window dressing of accounts taking support of a professional Charted Accountant. VAT returns/Ledger from Ambuja Cements also did not corroborate appellant's afterthought book of account. Bank A/c 30086295853 was never disclosed in ITR. It is the A.O. who painfully enquired into the matter. AR has tried to prove all cash deposits with cash sales. However, hundreds of lie cannot bury one truth. On various front such as cash book, capital A/c, Cash in hand, negative cash balance, undisclosed bank account defect in ledger, retail sale bills, AO has exposed the appellant's malafide intention t AR did not rebut with evidence even a single allegation of AO. Therefore, I am inclined to take side with AO. Thus, AO's findings is upheld. Addition u/f 68 amounting to Rs. 19,66,992/- is confirmed. Sole ground fails. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us a filed paper book running from pages 1 to 122 and reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT-A. 8. On the other hand, the learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that there were cash and cheque deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee which was not disclosed in the income tax return. The amount of cash and cheque deposit stands at ₹ 16,91,000/- only. The entire amount of cash and cheque deposits were treated as income of the assessee by the AO which was subsequently upheld by ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 6 the learned CIT(A) on numerous reason which have been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. 9.1 Before we deal with the allegations of the revenue contained in the respective orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A), the crucial question arises whether the amount of cash and cheque deposited in the bank account represents the income of the assessee. In this regard, we note that there is no specific and standard formula to reach to the conclusion that the deposits represent the income of the assessee. It depends upon various factors and circumstances. In simple words, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee merely on the basis that there is a deposit in the bank account which was not disclosed. Be that as it may, on perusal of the order of the AO the crucial facts emerge that there were also withdrawn from the impugned saving bank account of the assessee. For this purpose, we refer the relevant finding of the AO as contained in the assessment order which is reproduced as under: From the above it can be seen that the assessee has cash deposited in the above said Bank Accounts as well as various payments have made through cash/cheques. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX From the above statement it is once again re-established that the assessee continuously deposited cash and withdrawn cash by self cheque immediately. No supporting documentary evidence to, show that the transactions are of business in nature and genuine. However, the assessee never revealed the said savings Bank Account in the return of income, but the assessed' never expect that the department could dig out this particular Savings Account and bring out the reality. Inspite of opportunities availed the assessee lever come forward to divulge the truth or spill the beans about cash deposits. Hence, it is proved it is the income of the assessee earned out of books of accounts in a undisclosed sources 9.2 Thus, once a deposit has been treated as income of the assessee then as a corollary any sum withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee should be treated as an expense unless and until some contrary information is brought on record by the revenue with respect to the withdrawal of the money from the bank account. Such contrary information may be that the withdrawal of the money has been used by the assessee either for the purpose of making some investment or it has been used for incurring the personal expenses. But no such information has ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 7 been brought on the surface by the Revenue. The entire basis of treating the deposits in the bank account of the assessee as his income/ unexplained investment was that such saving bank account was not disclosed in the income tax return. To our understanding, non-disclosure of a particular bank account of the assessee, can give rise to have the doubt about the transactions reflected in such saving account but the deposits in such bank account in itself do not represent the income. 9.3 Even for the sake of understanding, it is assumed that the deposits in the bank account of the assessee represents the income, then the same should be available in some tangible form i.e. in form of investments, incurrence of expenses such as foreign trip, purchase of car, education or any other expense of similar nature. But no such detail is available in the order of the authorities below. On this count only the assessee has fair chance to succeed in his appeal filed before us. Nevertheless, the income has to be computed in the absence of supporting documents after considering the indirect information/material in conjunction with circumstantial evidences. The deposits in the bank account of the assessee whether disclosed or undisclosed stand at ₹ 10,46,000/-,₹ 28,99,832/- and ₹ 19,66,992/- which is very close to the amount of turnover shown by the assessee which can be worked out as under: Deposits in the current bank account ₹ 28,99,832/- Deposits in the undisclosed saving bank account ₹ 19,66,992/- Total ₹ 48,66,824/- 9.4 The turnover shown by the assessee in the financial statement stands at ₹ 39, lakhs only. Besides the above, we note that the assessee has also furnished the details for making the payment to M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd amounting to ₹ 38,48,984/- out of the current account of the assessee. In the current account of the assessee, there was a transfer of ₹10,46,000/- from the undisclosed saving bank account. Besides the above the assessee has also claimed ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 8 to have utilized the amount of deposits in the saving bank account for the business purposes which have been elaborated in the order of the learned CIT(A). Thus, considering all these facts in aggregation, we note that the entire amount of deposits in the bank account of the assessee cannot be treated as income. 9.5 However, the fact, there was negative cash balance, cannot be ignored. The onus was upon the assessee to explain such negative cash balance shown by him (the assessee). In the absence of any explanation, the same has to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee but to the extent of the negative cash balance pointed out in the cash book. In the present case, the negative cash balance has been worked out at ₹ 1,32,728/- which was not explained by the assessee based on any material. Thus to this extent, the assessee loses and accordingly I confirm the addition of ₹ 1,32,728/- only. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9.6 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Coming to ITA No.65/AHD/2020 for A.Y. 2010-11. 10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,57,000/- representing the amount deposited in the bank account as unexplained investment: 2. The Ld. C1T(A)54, Vadodara has further erred in law and in facts in ignoring the explanation of the appellant of such deposits of Rs. 25,57,000/- as representing the sales receipts from the goods traded. 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,62,756/- as undisclosed contract receipts ignoring the appellant's submission. The addition of Rs. 1,62,756/- is prayed to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition u7s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 1,05,000/- as made by the Ld. A.O. The addition of Rs. 1 ,05,0007- is prayed to be deleted. ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 9 5. The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,195/- representing the interest amount received from Bank. The addition of Rs.21,1 95/- is prayed to be deleted. 6. The Ld. CIT(A)-5, Vadodara has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,137/- as commission income. The addition of Rs. 29,1377- is prayed to be deleted. 7. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds of appeal herein above contained. 11. The 1 st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 and 2 is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 25,57,000.00 account of unexplained investments. 12. At the outset, I note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2010-11 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 64/AHD/2020 for the assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 64/AHD/2020 shall also be applicable for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. The appeal of the assessee for the AY 2009-10 has been decided by us vide paragraph No.9 of this order partly in favour of the assessee on account of negative cash balance. In the year under consideration, there is negative cash balance of Rs. 56,113.00 only. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings for the assessment year 2009-10 shall also be applied for the year under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11. Thus, the addition on account of negative cash balance is hereby confirmed. Hence, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 13. The next issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹ 1,62,756/- representing the undisclosed contract receipts. 14. The AO during the assessment proceedings found difference in the amount of income shown by the assessee of its proprietary concern namely M/s Akshar Services between the profit and loss account viz a viz in form 26AS. On question ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 10 by the AO, the assessee submitted that there were certain bills amounting to ₹1,33,560/- and ₹29,196/- which were accounted in the subsequent year whereas the payer has deducted the TDS in the year under consideration. Accordingly, it was contended by the assessee that he has shown more income than the income reported in form 26AS and accordingly the question of making any addition on account of mismatch of the income does not arise. 14.1 However, the AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee on the reasoning that amount of TDS on the impugned income shown by the assessee in the subsequent year has been claimed for ₹1,628/- in the year under dispute. Accordingly, he was of the view that the income of ₹1,62,756/- should have been accounted in the year under consideration and thus he has made the addition to the total income of the assessee. 15. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A) 16. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) reiterated the submission made before the AO. The assessee without prejudice also submitted that entire amount cannot be added to the total income of the assessee. As such, only the element of profit embedded in such gross income should only be considered for the purpose of the addition. 17. However, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under 8. Ground No.2 relates to Rs.1,62,756/- on account of undisclosed gross receipt. Undisputedly, appellant provided services to M/s Alembic Ltd. during F.Y. 2009-10. TDS of Rs.1,6287- was deducted and also reflected in 26AS of the appellant. Page No. 14, para (vii) of the assessment order, it is clearly mentioned that appellant has admitted his mistake and agreed to disclose gross receipt of Rs. 1,62,7567-. Admittedly, appellant and the payer i.e. M/s Alembic Ltd both following mercantile system of accounting. If is so, then there should not be any reason not to account for such receipts in his books of account. AR once again submitted ignorance of previous accountant and tried to prove innocence of the appellant. Revised books of account that also produced at assessment stage before the AO is quite alarming. Even if, I agree with revised unaudited books then it ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 11 did not match with VAT return. Even in remand proceedings, AO has pointed out various lacunae in original books and revised books. Being an appellate authority such as CIT(A), I am bound to upheld the painful inquiry resulting into unearthing of undisclosed bank A/c and all the gross receipts brought to tax by AO. AO's action requires no interference. Addition of Rs.1,62,756/- is upheld. Ground No.2 is dismissed. 18. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me. 19. The learned AR before me a filed paper book running from pages 1 to 202 and reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A). 20. On the other hand, the learned DR before me vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 21. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, I note that there was the contention raised by the assessee before the authorities below that the amount of difference in the income, as observed in the manner discussed above, has already been offered to tax in the subsequent year which has not been doubted by the authorities below. Thus, it is transpired that the impugned income has offered to tax in the subsequent financial year. If any addition is sustained in the year under consideration, it will lead to the double addition which is not desirable under the provisions of law. Therefore, on this count alone, the addition made by the authorities below is not sustainable. At the most, the benefit of the TDS amount claimed by the assessee for ₹1,628/- can be denied as the income corresponding to such amount of TDS has not been offered to tax in the year in dispute. Accordingly, I set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) with the direction to the AO not to allow the benefit of TDS of ₹1,628/- to the assessee in the year under consideration. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 12 22. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹1,05,000/- under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 23. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee has shown loan of ₹1,78,500/- in his balance sheet. But the assessee has failed to furnish the necessary details of the parties who has given loan to the assessee except contending that the actual amount of loan stands at ₹73,500/- which was received from friends and relatives. In the absence of necessary details, the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the assessee. 24. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A) 25. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) filed the revised balance sheet depicting the actual amount loan of ₹73,500/- from the parties as detailed below: Shri Bharat Ambalal Patel Rs.18,500/- Shri Ramanbhai D Patel Rs.18,500/- Shri Rameshbhai K Patel Rs.19,000/- Shri Yogeshbhai K Patel Rs.17,500/- Total Rs.73,500/- (Refer page No.126 & 129 of the Paper Book 25.1 The assessee in support of the loan amount has furnished the confirmations of the parties along with the proof of identity and the details of the lands held by them to justify the creditworthiness. 25.2 The assessee without prejudice to the above also contended that the amount of loan of ₹1,78,500/- represents the opening balance and therefore the same cannot be made subject to tax in the year under consideration. 26. However, the learned CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO in part by observing as under: ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 13 9.1 AR before me submitted list of four persons from whom cash loan below Rs.20,000/- each was received aggregating to Rs.73,500/-. AR further argued that balance Rs,1.05,000/- (Rs.1,78,500 - Rs.73.500) represents opening balance of unsecured loan. However. AR's contention cannot be relied upon. As on 31.03.2010 balance sheet shows unsecured loan of Rs.1,78,500/-. It is appellant's own books and not the AO's statement I fail to understand how an appellant can be at liberty to dispute own books. Notwithstanding, only leniency I can show is to consider Rs.73,500/- as explained as AR has submitted names of lender and AO could not identify specific defects in this fact. So far as opening unsecured loan is concerned AO is directed to verify B/S of AY 2009-10 filed before him and then determine fresh unsecured loan for the year. In other words only fresh unsecured loan and in excess of Rs.73,500/- can be brought to tax being unexplained income within the meaning of Sec 68 of the Act. Ground is disposed off in above terms. Ground No.3 is partly allowed. 27. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me. 28. The learned AR before me reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A). 29. On the other hand, the learned DR before me vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 30. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion I note that unsecured loan was shown by the assessee which were carried forward from the earlier assessment year. The contention of the assessee has nowhere been doubted by the authorities below but the same was rejected on the reasoning that the assessee himself is disputing the genuineness of the books of accounts. Nevertheless, I note that if the amount of loan has not been received in the year under consideration. Thus there is no question of making the additions in the year under consideration. In view of the above and after considering the facts in entirety, I hold that no addition is liable to be sustained on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thus, I set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 14 31. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹21,195/- representing the amount of interest received from the bank. 32. The AO during the assessment proceedings made an addition on interest income of ₹21,195/- on account of interest from the bank which was not offered to tax in the income tax return. On question by the AO, the assessee submitted that the amount of bank interest to the tune of ₹15,275/- has already been shown as indirect income in the profit and loss account and therefore no addition is liable to be made. 32.1 However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and made the addition of ₹21,195/- to the total income of the assessee. 33. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under: Ground No.4 relates to addition of Rs.21,195/- on account of saving interest. AR argued that appellant has already shown interest income of Rs. 15,275/- in ITR. Very clearly, once the appellant has accepted bank A/c 30086295853 not having disclosed in his ITR then obviously, interest income earned from this account has surely been left to be disclosed in ITR as well. AO has rightly pointed that appellant's indirect income of Rs. 15,275/- in ITR did not represent interest income earned from undisclosed bank A/c. Further, indirect income declared in ITR need not necessarily be including interest income from bank A/c. specifically from undisclosed bank A/c. Therefore, AR's arguments that interest income includes Rs. 15,275/- from undisclosed bank a/c also is far fetched. Addition on this count is upheld. Ground No.4 is dismissed. 34. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me. 35. The learned AR before me contended that the amount of interest income to the tune of ₹15,275/- has already been shown under the head indirect income in the profit and loss account. Thus, to this extent no addition can be made except the sum of ₹5,920/- being the difference in the amount of interest received from the bank. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A). ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 15 On the other hand, the learned DR before me vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 36. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, I note that the assessee has shown interest amounting to ₹15,275/- in its profit and loss account and therefore to this extent no addition is warranted. Accordingly, the addition in excess of interest of ₹5,920/- is hereby confirmed. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 37. The next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹29,137/- on account of commission income. 38. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that he has shown commission income of ₹29,137/- under the head indirect income by the nomenclature discount which was received from Ambuja Cement limited and this fact can be verified from the form 26AS. However, the AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee by observing that the amount of cash discount cannot be considered as commission income. Furthermore, the amount of discount was not matching with the amount shown in the form 26AS. 39. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 11.1 I find ledger A/c reflects credit discount of Rs.53,099/- and cash discount of Rs.40,902/- and this figure mentioned in 26AS statement tallies. Whereas commission income of Rs.29,137/- on which TDS u/s.194H has not been disclosed in ITR, has not been declared in ITR. In other words, Cash discount and credit discount both do not represent commission income. Commission income earned has to be accounted separately in ITR. A R once again tried to mislead the revenue. I am totally unconvinced with AR’s arguments. AO’s finding is upheld. Ground No.5 dismissed. 40. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me. ITA nos.64-65/AHD/2020 A.sY. 2009-10 & 2010-11 16 41. The learned AR before me reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A) 42. On the other hand, the learned DR before me vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 43. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, the controversy arises to resolve whether the cash discount shown by the assessee as income represents the commission received from M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd. As per the authorities below, the amount of commission income was not matching with the amount of discount shown by the assessee. It was the onus of the assessee to justify based on the documentary evidence that the amount of commission relates to the discount shown by the assessee. But no documentary evidence has been brought on record. Thus in the absence of any document, I confirm the addition made by the AO. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed 43.1 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed 44. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 06/04/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 06/04/2023 Manish