ITA Nos. 2436 & 2437/Del/2022 DCIT Vs. Omaxe India

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The Police intercepted two vehicles carrying cash amounting to Rs. 2,22,76,000/- on 22/11/2016, which was found to belong to M/s Omaxe Ltd. A survey was conducted on 22/11/2016, and cash amounting to Rs. 2,22,76,000/- was seized. The assessee company deposited cash of Rs. 4,73,00,000/- during the period of demonetization. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice, treating Rs. 4,41,99,889/- (Rs. 4,73,00,000/- minus Rs. 31,00,111/-) as unexplained and adding it to the income of the assessee. The assessee argued that the cash was needed for making payments for wages and other expenses, but the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal and deleted the addition. The Department of Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law & on facts by ignoring the fact that the assessee company only submitted that the company was a construction contractor and needs cash in hand for making payment for wages etc. The assessee did not produce any documentary evidences of any payment being made for wages etc.
• 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law & on facts by ignoring the fact that the assessee throughout during assessment proceedings even before appellate proceedings only submitted figures/datas in order to establish the source of such cash deposits made by the assessee during assessment proceedings but no documentary evidences relating to the purposes of such cash in hand i.e. expenses such as wages etc was filed by the assessee.
• 3. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law & on facts by ignoring Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which clearly speaks that the primarily burden of proof lies on the assessee in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions which the assessee failed to do so.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Jamal Mohamed Haroon Hassan Moulana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

• DCIT Vs. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘B’ benchAY 2020-21Dismissed

• Amarkumar Anupbhai Desai vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• M/s. SPL Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  'B' Bench : Bangalore benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• M/s Bindhya Bashini Traders Vs Circle – 32, Kolkata

  Kolkata bench

• Dhairya Jyotish Dandwala vs The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

  Ahmedabad bench