https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762565 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762565 Addition u/s 69A - cash deposit in the bank accounts (both the above bank accounts) during the demonetization period - HELD THAT:- As incumbent upon the authorities below to have issued summons to Mr. Neeraj Kumar u/s. 131 or ought to have made enquiries u/s. 133(6) with said Neeraj Kumar, to unravel complete truth. It is true that the assessee did not participated in the assessment proceedings, but the assessee duly participated in appellate proceedings conducted by ld. CIT(A). The powers of CIT(Appeals) are co-terminus with the powers of the Assessing Officer including power of enhancement. It is also explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that no proceedings have been initiated u/s. 143(2) or 147 against said Neeraj Kumar and his return of income has been accepted by Revenue. In these circumstances, it is only in the case when said Mr. Neeraj Kumar disown the aforesaid transactions, the Revenue could have proceeded against the assessee. No merit in the addition being made in the hands of the assessee on account of cash deposited on 10.11.2016, 13.11.2016 and 29.11.2016 in the demonetization currency of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- in the bank account maintained with Union Bank of India, Railway Road, Kasganj, as the said bank account belongs to Mr. Neeraj Kumar, proprietor of Anurag Kumar Neeraj Kumar. The Revenue has also not filed any C.O. with ITAT, thus, the Revenue is not aggrieved with the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). This addition as was made by the AO and later sustained by ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and directed to be deleted. Other deposits during the year, which in total are not exceeding Rs. 50,000/- . The assessee has owned up these cash deposits, and declaration has also been made in ITR filed with Revenue. The assessee has already declared income of Rs. 2,84,600/- in the return of income filed with the department. Under these facts and circumstances. There is no such adverse finding by the authorities below that the said cash deposits are not accounted for by the assessee. No merit in the addition being made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, order deletion of the additions made by the AO as income in the hands of the assessee which was later sustained by ld. CIT(A). Addition in the hands of the assessee on account of presumptive scheme of taxation u/s 44AD , as the said deposits are also in the bank account of Neeraj Kumar namely Anurag Kumar Neeraj Kumar, and the said bank account is owned by Shri Neeraj Kumar - If the department wanted to proceed, It ought to have proceeded against Mr. Neeraj Kumar, wherein department could have invoked provisions of Section 143(2) and/or Section 148. The department also did not find it relevant to issue summons u/s 131 or make enquiry u/s 133(6) with said Mr. Neeraj Kumar. It is true that the assessee did not participated in the assessment proceedings, but the assessee duly participated in appellate proceedings conducted by ld. CIT(A). The power of ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with the powers of the AO. It is not the case of the Revenue that the said Mr. Neeraj Kumar did not own the said deposits in the bank account. The Revenue has also not filed any C.O. with ITAT, thus, the Revenue is not aggrieved with the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the additions in the hands of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530