TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsists of dealing in beedi, tea powder and pan masala. For Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,49,520/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that there were several cash deposits in the two bank accounts of the assessee. Out of the aforesaid cash deposits, the AO culled out, the deposits that was made of bank notes that were declared as not legal tender owing to demonetization of currency. The details of the total cash deposits made by the Assessee in her bank account and the cash deposits of cash/currency notes that were declared as not legal tender that were deposited by the Assessee in his two bank account are as follows: Total deposits of cash in bank account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8/11/2016 was Rs. 4,90,673/-. After reducing Rs. 4,90,673/- from total deposit of Rs. 14,50,000/-, the balance is Rs. 9,59,327/-. Out of Rs. 9,59,327/, the old SBNs are totaling to Rs. 4,50 ,500/- which stands unexplained. Hence, the same is treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act in the books of account of the assessee and the same is required to be brought to tax. The assessee has accepted for the addition of the same to the return income. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,49,500/- is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act and to tax as u/s 115BBE of the Act." 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that the cash deposits of Rs. 4,50,500/- in question was the cash collection fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also filing its VAT Returns in connection to the purchases and sales made by it to the concerned authority. It was submitted that the impugned addition made is nothing but the sales made by the Assessee. The Assessee relied on decision of ITAT Indore Bench in the case of DEWAS SOYA LTD, UJJAIN v/s Income Tax (Appeal No 336/Ind/2012 wherein on identical facts of the case it was held that the claim of the assessee that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tized notes upto 31.12.2016. Since the amounts deposited were sale proceeds of business and the income from the business have already been taxed, the impugned addition should be deleted. Our attention was also drawn to section 26(2) of the RBI Act, 1934 which provides that government can specify certain notes as not legal tender. It was argued that if there is any violation of the statutory provisions, the consequences will be only under the relevant provisions of RBI Act, 1934 and those violations cannot lead to any addition under section 68 of the Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements rendered on identical facts of the case as that of the assessee. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. We have gone through the trading account and find that there was sufficient stock to effect the sales and we do not find any defect in the stock as well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Jewellery House (Supra) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),Hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 10. The assessee....