TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2-017-18 and cross objections are filed by the assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of retail trading of gold jewellery and silver articles filed his return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 03.11.2017, admitting total income of Rs. 7,58,330/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income on 15.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 32,77,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee made cash deposits in his bank account during demonetization period in the F.Y.2016-17 to the extent of Rs. 1,33,90,000/-. The AO called for the explanation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ier year. Therefore, the AO treated the sum of Rs. 74,90,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly brought to tax u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act. 3. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) after having gone through the submissions, viewed that the cash balance in books of accounts has no relevance with earlier year sales and it needs to be considered with the current year's sales and purchases. With regard to second objection of making deposits till the fag end of the Dec. 2016, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the deposits were made from 10.11.2016 to 17.11.2016 and the reasons explained by the assessee for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d accepted the sum of Rs. 59,00,000/- which were withdrawn from 01.11.2016 to 07.11.2016 on various dates and dropped the addition to the extent of Rs. 59,00,000/-. The AO made the addition relating to remaining amount of Rs. 74,90,000/- for the reason that the net profit of the assessee was reduced from 4.46% to 1.88% compared to the earlier year and the cash balance shown by the assessee as on 09.11.2016 does not commensurate with the closing balance as on the same date of last year. Both the factors considered by the AO for making the addition was not relevant as rightly observed by the Ld.CIT(A). What is to be seen is whether the sum was duly recorded in the books of accounts or not. In the instant case, the assessee explained that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer himself has accepted that the unsecured loans which were repaid during the year were availed before 1st April 2005. It is also admitted factual position that in the earlier years wherein such unsecured loans were availed by the assessee no doubts were raised by the Assessing Officer and the unsecured loans have been accepted. Further, to verify the genuineness of the unsecured loans taken from a large number of persons the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) on random basis to 15 creditors and summons under section 131 of the Act to five creditors. The Assessing Officer has himself observed in the assessment order that in response to the notices issued under section 133(6) the concerned parties submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained. So far as the decision cited before us by the learned Departmental Representative, on careful reading of the same, it is found to be factually distinguishable as in the facts of that case, a large amount of money were found deposited in various bank accounts held by the assessee and the assessee was unable to explain the source of such deposits. Whereas, in the facts of the present case, there is no doubt with regard to recording of repayment of loan in the books of account and the source of such fund. What the Assessing Officer has doubted to disallow the repayment is the genuineness of unsecured loans received by the assessee in the earlier assessment years. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the decision cited by the learned De....