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=769839 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769839 Addition u/s 69A - unexplained cash deposits in SBN during the demonetisation period - taxation u/s 115BEE - HELD THAT:- Assessee is running a coaching centre for aspirants for recruitment done by State Public Service Commission. The assessee's business involves cash collection from the trainees. During the assessment proceedings the assessee have furnished the books of accounts, cash book, Service tax returns in support of the turnover along with reconciliation, bank statements and sales records. Assessee has explained the source of cash deposit was from the business, collected on account of fees collected from the trainees and the entire list of candidates to show the nature and source of the cash deposit were furnished before the AO. AO and CIT(A) have not pointed out any defects or irregularities in the books of accounts of the assessee and further the same have not been rejected. In this scenario making an addition as unexplained money on account of the cash deposit made in SBN during the demonetisation period is not sustainable in law. Therefore, we do not countenance the action of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO for the reason that the assessee was not authorised to accept the SBN during the demonetisation period. In the present case the assessee though the assessee has collected the SBN during the demonetisation period, the same was not prohibited as per the specified bank notes (Cessation of Liability) Act, 2017. Further, we find that the assessee has explained the source of the cash deposit also. Hence, as relying on M/S. SURABII GOLD [2024 (4) TMI 1241 - ITAT CHENNAI] CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition u/s. 69A for the reason that the assessee was prohibited to accept the same. Difference between opening WDV of Fixed assets as per ITR and closing WDV of Fixed assets as per ITR - AO has made the addition u/s. 69 as an unexplained investment stating that the assessee has made addition to the assets which were not disclosed, instead of crediting to P & L Account as income, has credited to the capital account. - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has duly submitted the particulars pertaining to the loans obtained for the purpose of acquiring the assets in question and has substantiated the sources of funds utilized for such acquisitions during the relevant assessment years, in addition to the income declared in those respective years. Furthermore, it is observed that the immovable properties in question, acquired during the period from Year 2006 to 2012, are supported by registered sale deeds executed in favour of the assessee. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the additions in the assessment year under consideration, without duly appreciating the fact that the said assets had been acquired in earlier years from borrowed funds and disclosed sources of income. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the AO is directed to delete the impugned additions by allowing the grounds raised by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530