TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 14/09/2021 confirmed addition of Rs. 13,57,110/- made by the ld. ITO without considering the facts that appellant has submitted copies of accounts of persons with their addresses containing the details of cash paid by them against the delivery of Rail tickets with date of travel, ticket number etc. with cash book and bank statement, stating the fact that appellant has not submitted these details before CIT(A), hence CIT(A) erred in law and facts in not allowing the appeal of appellant. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds as well as to submit additional grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal." 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee the assessee is an individual, engaged in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kets. On perusal of reply, the Assessing Officer was of the view that there was no sufficient cash balance on 09/11/2016 to deposit amount of Rs. 13,57,110/- during demonetization period. The Assessing Officer was further of the view that after demonetization, old notes were scrapped except some of the institutions authorised by the government. The assessee is not authorised railway agent. He was not required to accept old notes. The cash deposit of Rs. 13,57,110/- is nothing but unaccounted income of assessee and accordingly made addition thereof. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed statement of fact inter alia, stating therein that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished complete details of bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence recording his claim and has failed to prove that cash deposit in his bank account during demonetization period are out of his own income or otherwise. No supporting evidence is filed to justify the availability of huge cash in hand for depositing in bank. The assessee failed to provide evidence in order to justify the cash deposit during demonetization period and confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue and have perused the orders of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on booking only. The Assessing Officer brought the addition under Section 115BBE of the Act. Since the bank deposit are proceeds of business transaction, which cannot be taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act. To support the submissions on merit and invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act, the assessee filed following case laws: (1) Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT (1992) 60 Taxman 248 (SC) (2) ITO Vs Ashwin d. Menta Tax Appeal No. 386 of 2000 (3) Narendra g. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (4) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (5) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (6) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (all) (7) Anantpur Kalpana Vs I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower authorities carefully. I have also gone through the various case laws as well as details of bank accounts furnished by assessee. Considering the submission of both the parties, I find that it is an admitted fact that the assessee was doing his business for booking of railway tickets. The assessee was doing such business much prior to declaration of demonetization scheme on 08/11/2016. Copy of bank statement shows that almost all the amount received by assessee were ultimately deposited/remitted to the account of IRCTC by way of debit card payment. The assessee throughout the proceedings before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(A) contended that he was working as an agent/sub-agent of Akbar Online Booking Pvt. Ltd.. Su....