TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circile-1(1), Raipur. 1. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as under: 1. "Whether in Law and on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 72,42,648/- on account of unexplained cash credit found in the books of the assessee." 2. "Whether in Law and on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) has erred in not appreciating or appraising the evidence and arguments submitted by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has failed to discharge its burden under section 68 of the Act." 3. "Whether in Law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for compulsory scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(3) was issued on 09.08.2018. Assessment proceedings were initiated, statutory notices were issued and in compliance, the AR of the assessee has filed requisite submissions online a/w supporting documents, which were examined and placed on records. On thorough verifications of ITR, Audit Report, Books of Accounts and other records made available by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO has observed an issue pertaining to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 12,55,16,151/- in the Bank Account of the Assessee's firm. Month wise details of Cash deposits were called for from the assessee a/w explanation for source and proof of such deposits. From the details submitted b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Wherein Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has approved the contentions of the assessee with the observation that the onus cast on the appellant has been discharged, consequently, the addition u/s 68 has been deleted. 5. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) the department is now in appeal before us. 6. Ld. Sr DR before us has submitted that the issue in the present case relates to demonetisation period therefore the Ld. AO has specifically examined such period and found extraordinary cash deposits in the account of the assessee for which the assessee has explained that the amount were received from the debtors, but has squarely failed in substantiate by producing any evidences in support of their contention like pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....68 cannot be invoked. Ld. In support of this contention, Ld. AR relied upon the order of ITAT Bench, Jaipur in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Chandra Surana in ITA No. 166/JP/2022, wherein it is held that section 68 cannot be invoked in respect of cash sale which have been furnished in the books of account and accepted by the department. Ld. AR further placed his reliance on the judgment in the case of Smt Harshil Chordia vs. ITO 298 ITR 349, wherein Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that when money is received against shell then section 68 cannot be invoked. 8. On factual aspects, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the substantial amount has been received in the first 15 days of the month of November of every year. The assessee, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate the trend of cash receipts during the month of November in earlier years. 11. Admittedly, on perusal of the assessment order, it is ostensible that the explanations of the assessee regarding amounts received in cash from debtors are not enough to substantiate the genuineness of cash receipts, the assessee has failed in discharging its duties in submitting the requisite documents like purchase of invoices, booking invoices, address, and contact details of the parties from any concerned parties, so as to corroborate the explanations which have been offered before the Ld. AO. The details produced before the AO were again produced before the Ld. CIT(A), however, on perusal of the order of Ld CIT(A), it is arising that the Ld. CIT(A) has ....