TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115 BBE of the Act, on account of alleged Unexplained Money ignoring the business of the appellant and/or without appreciating the fact that the same is the part of gross receipts from business and the net income on such receipts have already been offered to tax as income in the ROI filed for the captioned year. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred both in law and on the facts in confirming the impugned addition to the total income of the appellant by wrongly invoking section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring submission/s, explanations and information submitted by the appellant which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in time. I find that the assessee is not going to be benefited in filing appeal belatedly, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 08/08/2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,37,920/- which consists of income from business of Rs. 1,78,673/- and income from other sources of Rs. 59,249/-. The assessee filed revised return on 24/02/2018 declaring same income. The return was again revised on 01/08/2018 declaring income of Rs. 2,91,130/- by showing income from other sources. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made cash deposit in his bank accounts during demonetization period aggregating of Rs. 13,74,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to explain the source of cash deposit with supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee has not furnished any reply/document/explanation or information to the said show cause notice. The Assessing Officer in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnored. The assessee reiterated that the bank deposits were immediately transferred to Interactive Financial & Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. and Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd. through RTGS/NEFT, so the assessee collecting cash and remitting to both the companies. 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee and the assessment order, held that during the assessment, the assessee has not complied the notices nor responded. Cash was deposited during demonetization but not supporting evidence was produced about the business of assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition for want of compliance. The assessee has relied on statement in AS-26, on the basis of statement, it is not possible to come on a conclusion of business of assessee, the assessee should have submitted the details of commission earned during the period under consideration. No month wise sale, month wise deposit, statement of purchase from concerned entity, total sales, details of cash and sales during demonetization were provided. The assessee has not furnished any submission before the Assessing Officer and in absence of such information, the cash deposit in the bank account had become unexplained. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer wrongly taxed the deposits under Section 115BBE of the Act. The deposits in bank accounts were in fact part and parcel of business or transaction. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the entire addition is liable to be deleted. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following decisions: (i) New Pooja Jewellers Vs ITO ITA No. 1329/Kol/2018 dated 26/02/2020. (ii) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (iii) DCIT Vs M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016 dated 23/02/2018. (iv) Smt. Teena Bethala Vs ITO ITA No. 1383 & 1384/Bang/2019 dated 28/08/2019 9. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not furnished any evidence in response to show cause notice before the Assessing Officer, thus, the Assessing Officer left no option but to make the addition on aggregate of the deposit in the bank. The assessee has taken a new plea that all deposits in the bank are proceed of business transaction. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee failed to substantiate such contention before the lower authorities. 10. I have consi....