AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 598
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs.30.00 lakhs in cash during the demonetization period in old denomination i.e. Rs.1000 currency notes in his bank a/c held with Indian Overseas Bank. On being asked by the Assessing Officer to explain the source of such deposit, the assessee explained the same as out of sale proceeds of the business. According to the Assessing Officer, since the old denomination currency i.e. Rs.1000 and Rs.500 notes were banned by the Govt. of India from 08/11/2016 midnight, therefore, the sale proceeds received in old denomination, as admitted by the assessee himself cannot be treated as receipt from the business. He, therefore, held that the amount to the tune of Rs.30.00 lakhs stand unexplained. From various details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted the following date-wise deposit of old denomination notes in the bank: S.No Date of Deposit No.of Rs.1000 notes No.of Rs.500 notes Amount (Rs.) 1 11.11.2016 1000 - 10,00,000 2 15.11.2016 1000 - 10,00,000 3 23.11.2016 1000 - 10,00,000 T O T A L 30,00,000 4. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eposit transaction and statement of IOB, form No. 3CB, form No. 3CD, Cash flow statement are produced before me but they are not sufficient to prove the contention of the assessee. I have gone through the sale Register, cash book and the Bank statement they do not help the case of the appellant. Cash sale has not been linked with bills and vouchers. On perusal of cash book it is seen that it is all prepared as an afterthought to support the deposit of cash during demonetization period. Cash sale has not been shown as comparative sale in earlier years or later years. So all these are clearly on afterthought by the appellant. During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant has not submitted balance sheet to prove the cash in hand which is deposited in bank account. The onus is upon the assessee to furnish the concrete documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposit. Here, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposit. Therefore, in the absence of any concrete details regarding the source of cash deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- is remains as unexplained u/s 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. So far as add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; 7,92,48,350.60 12. Referring to page 176 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the details of cash sales from 1.4.2016 to 8.11.2016: Month & Year Cash Sales April, 2016 42,35,445.00 May 2016 48,42,932.60 June, 2016 75,97,847.00 July, 2016 48,30,725.00 August 2016 54,99,673.00 September 2016 84,46,503.00 October 2016 73,09,041.00 Nov.16 till 08.11.2016 26,05,083.00 4,53,67,249.60 13. Referring to page 177 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the details of month-wise cash sales and cash deposits from 1.4.2015 to 8.11.2015: Month & Year Opening cash in hand Cash sales Cash deposited in Bank Cash withdrawal from Bank Closing cash on hand April, 2015 4,23,945 29,46,942 37,77,350 - 3,38,780 May 2015 3,38,780 44,88,299 46,73,480 - 8,11,044 June 2015 8,11,044 45,74,203 51,31,200 - 6,80,933 July 2015 6,80,933 45,95,912 49,31,430 - 2,63,331 Aug. 2015 2,63,331 37,54,374 36,07,000 - 7,84,051 Sept.2015 7,84,051 45,54,706 48,89,500 - 7,67,309 Oc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee on this issue be allowed. 17. In so far as the addition of Rs.2,40,000/- by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT (A) is concerned, he submitted that there is nothing on record before the revenue authorities that the assessee has spent more than what has been disclosed in the capital a/c towards withdrawals. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the NFAC is purely based on surmises and presumptions. He submitted that surmises and presumptions however strong may be, cannot be the basis for addition. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned NFAC on this issue should also be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. 18. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the NFAC. He submitted that when the assessee himself has admitted that he has made cash sales during the demonetization period in old currency notes, which is illegal, therefore, the source of such deposits in the Bank A/c remains unexplained and therefore, the NFAC was fully justified in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the additions sustained by the CIT (A) on acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee, 21. I find an identical issue came before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Agson Global (P) Ltd (Supra). In that case, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.99.04 crores to the total income of the assessee apart from other additions on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) restricted the addition of Rs.73.13 crores. The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT (A) of Rs.73.13 crores in respect of cash deposits made with the Bank during demonetization period. In appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under: "17.6. Having regard to the extensive material which has been examined by the Tribunal, in particular, the trend of cash sales and corresponding cash deposited by the assessee with earlier years, we are of the view that there was nothing placed on record-which could have persuaded the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee had, in fact, earned unaccounted income i.e., made cash deposits which were not represented by cash sales. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly found ....