Sagar Kumar Ray v. DCIT - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5159 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Orison Minerals & Properties v. DCIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2688 (Ctk-Trib)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1767 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3900 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3466 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2423 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Kabul Chawla 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3486 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corpn Ltd. 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2182 (Bom-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersIT(SS)A No. 47/CTK/2016 & ITA No. 408/CTK/2019 2020 TaxPub(DT) 0814 (Ctk-Trib) IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH C.M. GARG, J.M. & L.P. SAHU, A.M. Sagar Kumar Ray v. DCIT IT(SS)A No. 47/CTK/2016 & ITA No. 408/CTK/2019 28 January, 2020 Assessee by: Manoj Patra, FCA Revenue by: Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR ORDER *L.P. Sahu, A.M.* These two appeals have been filed by assessee, one is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar, dated 26-8-2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 and other is against the Order, dated 2-7-2018, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. First we shall decide the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 47/CTK/2016, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-- 1. (i)(a) Addition of Rs. 9,66,112 on the ground of unexplained Cash Credit under section 68 in respect of proprietor's capital were not genuine is incorrect and bad in law as the capital account is disclosed in the schedule of Balance Sheet which is inclusive of current year profit and drawings of the Appellant. (ii) Further, the addition of Rs. 4,56,820 on the ground of unexplained Cash Credit under section 68 in respect of Sundry Creditors outstanding in the books of the Appellant is incorrect and arbitrary as the details of creditors along with their address, ledger copy and balance confirmation were available with the Appellant and hence genuine. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersIT(SS)A No. 47/CTK/2016 & ITA No. 408/CTK/2019
2020 TaxPub(DT) 0814 (Ctk-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH

C.M. GARG, J.M. & L.P. SAHU, A.M.

Sagar Kumar Ray v. DCIT

IT(SS)A No. 47/CTK/2016 & ITA No. 408/CTK/2019

28 January, 2020

Assessee by: Manoj Patra, FCA

Revenue by: Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR

ORDER

L.P. Sahu, A.M.

These two appeals have been filed by assessee, one is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Bhubaneswar, dated 26-8-2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 and other is against the Order, dated 2-7-2018, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2013-14.

2. First we shall decide the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 47/CTK/2016, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :--

1. (i)(a) Addition of Rs. 9,66,112 on the ground of unexplained Cash Credit under section 68 in respect of proprietor's capital were not genuine is incorrect and bad in law as the capital account is disclosed in the schedule of Balance Sheet which is inclusive of current year profit and drawings of the Appellant.

(ii) Further, the addition of Rs. 4,56,820 on the ground of unexplained Cash Credit under section 68 in respect of Sundry Creditors outstanding in the books of the Appellant is incorrect and arbitrary as the details of creditors along with their address, ledger copy and balance confirmation were available with the Appellant and hence genuine.