TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 15/05/2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,64,130/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that as per information available with him, the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 12,18,000/-, during demonetization year in her two bank accounts maintained with Axis bank. The Assessing Officer prepared a summary of cash deposit during demonetization year, during remaining period of financial year (FY) and other credit entries in the following manner: Bank Name Account No. Cash deposit during demonetization period (Rs.) Cash deposit during remaining year 2016-17 (Rs.) Credit entry other than cash during the year (Rs.) Total Rs. Axis bank 913010054129047 2,50,000/- 2,15,000/- 5,50,000/- 10,15,000/- Axis bank 915020009055079 9,68,000/- 1,05,500/- 4,69,902/- 15,43,402/- Total 25,58,402/- On the basis of aforesaid details, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to explain the source of credit and debit and nature of credit and debit through cheques. The Assessing Officer also noted in his show cause notice that in case, all expenditure, cash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per closing balance, the assessee was having cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 12,31,067/-. The cash in hand as on 31/3/2016 was Rs. 2,56,472/-. To substantiate such submission, the assessee furnished copy of ITR for preceeding assessment year. The assessee furnished complete details of labour receipt from April, 2016 till March, 2017 as recorded by the ld. NFAC in the following manner: Month Amount in (Rs.) April, 2016 82,550 May, 2016 1,81,810 June, 2016 1,83,515 July, 2016 2,10,100 Aug. 2016 1,63,950 Sept. 2016 1,62,300 Oct 2016 1,44,820 Nov. 2016 14,100 De. 2016 29,350 Jan 2017 14,685 Feb. 2017 36,703 March 2017 2,16,032 Labour Income in cash 14,39,915 Labour income other than cash 2,53,020 Total Labour Income 16,92,935 6. On the basis of her submission, the assessee contended that there was no variation/jump in labour income offered by assessee during predemonetization year and post-demonetization year and furnished the following details: Particular Labour Income (In Rs.) Pre-demonetization year i.e. 01/04/2015 to 31/03/2016 13,43,585 Demonetization year i.e. 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 16,92,935 Post-demonetization year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ences furnished by the assessee is not sacrosanct. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. There is no dispute that assessee made certain cash deposit in her two bank accounts during demonetization year and subsequent period thereto. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee, in reply to show cause specifically contended that she is engaged in the jewellery designing, has shown labour receipt. We find that the assessee has not shown the income from labour receipt for the first time, similar business receipt/labour receipt was also shown in preceeding year which was accepted by the lower authorities. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. The ld. NFAC instead of giving any finding on the various submission as well as on the evidences furnished by assessee concluded that the assessee had not brought any material on record to establish the genuineness of cash receipts. We find that the lower authorities have not considered ratio of similar cash deposit in previous and subsequent financial year. We find that in previous financial year i.e. pre-demonetization year i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing with the similar issue on account of cash deposit in bank account during demonetization year wherein the addition was made under Section 68 of the Act, passed the following order: "7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the A.O. in the instant case made addition of Rs.39,60,000/- to the total income of the assessee on the ground that assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit made in the bank account during the demonetization period. I find the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC upheld the action of the A.O, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that cash deposited in the bank account represents partly the sale proceeds in cash and partly realization from debtors, for which, complete details were filed before the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and without giving any justifiable reasons, the A.O. has made the addition which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer proceeds to make addition u/s 68 of the Act. We are dealing with a situation in which the assessee has himself offered the amount of cash sales as his income by duly including it in his total sales. Once a particular amount is already offered for taxation, the same cannot be again considered u/s 68 of the Act. In fact, such addition has resulted into double addition." 7.3. Similarly, I find the Indore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs., Dewas Soya Ltd., (supra) has observed as under : "The claim of the appellant that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year is also acceptable 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. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed. The assessee has already offered the sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n we note that the impugned amount has been taxed twice firstly the same was treated as sales and secondly the same was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Even if we assume that the action of the learned CIT (A) is correct i.e. the impugned amount is representing the cash credit as provided under section 68 of the Act. Then, the learned CIT (A) was dutybound to reduce the same from the amount of sales as the same does not represent the sale but unexplained cash credit. As such, the same amount cannot be held taxable twice as per the wish of the learned CIT (A). In our considered view the action of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous to the extent of treating the same as sale proceeds and the unexplained cash credit simultaneously. 9.4. However, we are also conscious to the fact that there is no allegation from the authorities below that the impugned amount represents the unexplained cash credit over and above the sale proceeds. We also find important to refer the provisions of section 68 of the Act which reads as under : 9.5 From the above, we note that the provisions of section 68 of the Act can be attracted where there is a credit found in the book....