TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal on cash deposits during demonetization under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>DCIT Circle 4 (2) New Delhi Versus Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Kirti Nagar, West, New Delhi.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act concerning cash deposits during demonetization. The ... Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits made into its bank accounts during demonetization period - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- AO did not point out any defects in the books of account, no discrepancies were found in the stocks, sales and purchases. AO’s conclusion is that there are huge deposits in the bank account during demonetization period and the assessee could not explain such deposits. The assessee has amply demonstrated with evidences that the cash sales and the cash deposits during FYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were almost same and there is only a minimal increase in cash deposits during the FY 2016- 17 relevant to the AY 2017-18. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order considering all the submissions of the assessee and the averments of the AO. As decided in M/S HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS AND (VICE-VERSA) [2021 (5) TMI 447 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] through the trading account and find that there was sufficient stock to effect the sales and we do not find any defect in the stock as well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. Thus we hold that the AO has made addition u/s 68 erroneously. The ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. Issues Involved:1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period.2. Consistency of cash sales and deposits with previous financial years.3. Validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) method and findings.4. Applicability of judicial precedents and legal principles.Summary:Issue 1: Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period.The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 concerning cash deposits by the assessee during demonetization. The AO had added Rs. 9,99,51,075/- as unexplained cash deposits, which was contested by the assessee and subsequently deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).Issue 2: Consistency of cash sales and deposits with previous financial years.The assessee demonstrated that cash sales and deposits during FY 2016-17 were consistent with previous years. For FY 2015-16, cash sales were Rs. 31,85,57,163/- with a cash sales to turnover ratio of 70.82%, and for FY 2016-17, cash sales were Rs. 42,84,00,142/- with a ratio of 73.74%. The cash deposit ratios were also consistent, showing regularity in business operations.Issue 3: Validity of the Assessing Officer's (AO) method and findings.The AO's analysis indicated a significant increase in cash deposits and sales during the demonetization period, which he deemed unjustified. However, the Ld.CIT(A) found that the AO did not point out any defects in the books of accounts, stocks, or sales. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had adequate stock and consistent sales patterns, and the cash deposits were aligned with the cash sales recorded in the books.Issue 4: Applicability of judicial precedents and legal principles.The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the cases of Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Hirapanna Jewellers, and others, which supported the assessee's position. These cases established that once sales are recorded in the books and accepted, the corresponding cash deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68. The Tribunal affirmed that the AO's addition resulted in double taxation and was not supported by evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made under Section 68, finding that the AO's conclusions were erroneous and not backed by substantial evidence. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
