AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of National Faceless Appeal Centre at Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037885093(l) dated 17.12.2021 for the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 72,92,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the source for the cash deposits made by the appellant were out of the collections from the operation of taxi services rendered by the appellant and further ought to have appreciated that the explanation offered by the appellant would vitiate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act and ought to have appreciated that having admitted the deposits of the SBNs during the window period by giving sanctity to the said SBNs, the presumption of such deposited SBNs as unexplained money was wholly unjustified. 9. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the distinction between the prohibition in transacting SBNs and permission granted to deposit the SBNs within the window period was completely overlooked and ought to have appreciated that in the event of reckoning SBNs as not a legal tender, the sustenance of the said addition as unexplained money would automatically fall to the ground. 10. The NFAC failed to appreciate that there was no proper / reasonable opportunity given before passing of the impugned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pts, is not accepted. Therefore, rejected arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 72,92,000/- towards cash deposits in SBNs during demonetization period u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but could not succeed. The Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 17.12.2021, rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the additions made towards cash deposits during demonetization period. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) are erred in sustaining additions towards cash deposits in SBNs during demonetization period without appreciating the fact that there is no prohibitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition towards cash deposits during demonetization period, and their orders should be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The factual matrix of the impugned dispute is that the assessee's firm engaged in the business of car hiring. The main source of income of the assessee is hire charges received from customers and such receipts is mainly in cash. The assessee claimed to have been received SBNs from customers during demonetization period and deposited into bank account. We find that the arguments of the assessee appears to be bona fide, if you go by the nature of business of the assessee, because, it is common practice in transport busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notification of Ministry of Finance and RBI, is not correct. 7. Having said so, let us come back to the arguments of the assessee, although, the assessee claims to have received SBNs from customers during demonetization period, but could not file necessary evidences to prove its claim. Further, the assessee could not file necessary analysis of receipts from business including cash receipts and bank receipts during demonetization period and corresponding previous period. In absence of any details with regard to nature and source of cash receipts, the arguments of the assessee that said cash deposits is out of business receipts, cannot be accepted in total. Therefore, considering the fact that the assessee is in the business of hiring of ....