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>ITAT Upholds Deletion of Section 68 Addition for Demonetized Cash Deposits, Confirms Partial Profit Adjustment</h1> <h3>A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Bareilly. Versus Shri Sachit Kumar Agarwal</h3> A.C.I.T., Circle-1, Bareilly. Versus Shri Sachit Kumar Agarwal - TMI ISSUES: Whether addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act is justified on cash deposits made in demonetized currency during demonetization period.Whether addition to gross profit disclosed by the assessee can be made by enhancing the gross profit rate on the basis of assumptions, conjectures, and surmises.Whether the Assessing Officer is justified in rejecting books of account and estimating income under section 145 of the Income-tax Act without credible material or evidence. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- under section 68 was rightly deleted as the deposits represented cash sales made in demonetized currency within a short period post demonetization announcement, and the Assessing Officer's addition was based on mere doubts, human probability, conjectures, and surmises without any credible material.The enhancement of gross profit addition from Rs. 10,20,693/- to Rs. 1,01,54,618/- by the Assessing Officer was unwarranted; the learned CIT(A)'s scaling down of the addition was upheld because the Assessing Officer's estimation was based on 'surmise and conjecture' and not on any evidence, and the gross profit rate declared by the assessee was consistent with past years and business practice.The rejection of books of account and estimation of income under section 145 must be based on 'reasonable basis' and credible evidence; additions made solely on assumptions, presumptions, or surmises are not tenable in law, and book results deserve to be accepted when no defect or suppression is shown. RATIONALE: The Court applied the provisions of section 68 and section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that additions under section 68 require credible material to disprove the genuineness of cash deposits, and mere staggered deposits or timing during demonetization is insufficient to draw adverse inference.The Court relied on precedent authorities which hold that rejection of books of account or enhancement of gross profit rate cannot be based on 'personal assumptions, presumptions, conjectures and surmise' and must be supported by evidence; consistent past years' gross profit rates are a valid benchmark for estimation.The judgment reaffirmed the principle that income must be deduced from books of account and other documents furnished, and speculative or notional assessments without credible evidence are impermissible under section 145.The Court referred extensively to precedents from various High Courts and ITAT decisions reinforcing that additions based on surmises or without pointing out specific defects in books of account are liable to be deleted, and that gross profit rates applied for estimation must have a factual basis grounded in past accepted results.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the decision follows established legal principles and precedents concerning assessment under sections 68 and 145 of the Income-tax Act.
TaxTMI 