<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tax Tribunal Upholds Deletion of Unexplained Cash Deposit Addition; AO Failed to Verify Consignment Sales Explanation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81713</link>
    <description>Assessee engaged in business of commission agent (Aadatia) for agricultural products. AO made addition u/s 68 treating entire cash deposits in bank account as unexplained, alleging undisclosed trading activity. CIT(A) deleted addition after considering cash books, ledgers, bank statements of three proprietorship concerns, observing cash deposits duly recorded relating to consignment sales over Rs. 17 crores, part received in cash. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s decision, noting AO failed to rebut assessee&#039;s explanation that cash deposits represented sale proceeds received on farmers&#039; behalf, incidental to commission income. AO could have cross-verified from Mandi Samiti records but didn&#039;t. Only real income taxable, AO erred by taxing receipts instead.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tax Tribunal Upholds Deletion of Unexplained Cash Deposit Addition; AO Failed to Verify Consignment Sales Explanation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81713</link>
      <description>Assessee engaged in business of commission agent (Aadatia) for agricultural products. AO made addition u/s 68 treating entire cash deposits in bank account as unexplained, alleging undisclosed trading activity. CIT(A) deleted addition after considering cash books, ledgers, bank statements of three proprietorship concerns, observing cash deposits duly recorded relating to consignment sales over Rs. 17 crores, part received in cash. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s decision, noting AO failed to rebut assessee&#039;s explanation that cash deposits represented sale proceeds received on farmers&#039; behalf, incidental to commission income. AO could have cross-verified from Mandi Samiti records but didn&#039;t. Only real income taxable, AO erred by taxing receipts instead.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>