2024 (6) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the AY 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income for the AY 2017-18 electronically on 1/2/2018 admitting a total income of Rs. 7,84,640/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for 'limited scrutiny' under CASS for the reason to verify 'cash deposits during the demonetization period'. Thereafter, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17/08/2018 and the same was served on the assessee through email. Notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates calling for certain information through email and in reply, the assessee furnished the information called for. On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r some other purposes which are not brought on record (para 6.6 of the CIT(A)'s order). Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 27,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing." 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee being involved in money lending business, on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tails before the Ld. AO and even before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and therefore there is no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and the same may be sustained. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed facts that the assessee has disclosed the investment in his books of account and also shown the same in the computation of income which was offered for taxation. Therefore, the Ld. AR's contention that the provisions of section 69A are not applicable in the present case of the assessee as the cash deposits during the demonetization period are duly recorded in the assessee's books of accounts holds good. I have also consid....