TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Form 36. Out of these four grounds of appeal, Grounds No. 1 & 4 are general grounds, which do not call for recording of any specific finding. 3. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,29,23,200/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained money. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 13.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 23,83,240/-. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 12923200/- would not be added back to his income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income tax act, 1961 and taxed u/s 115BBE since the source and nature of acquisition of the money remains unexplained. He was requested to substantiate the deposits by production of appropriate documentary evidence. In response to the said notice, the assessee only said via the e proceeding module that all the deposits were from sales turnover. The assessee did not mention as to whether the sales was effected before or after 08/11/2016. Because after 08/11/2016, when the legal tender of currency notes of denominations Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000/- was withdrawn, it is illogical that anybody will accept a "piece of paper" in return of goods sold. Also, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed currency notes during the specified period in his books of account and the amount of Rs. 12923200/- is unaccounted for. That is the reason of the assesses constant reluctance to furnish the books of account and furnishing contradicting explanations despite being given a no. of opportunities to do the same. Thus, the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of acquisition of the money in its possession amounting to Rs. 12923200/- . Hence, the amount of Rs. 1,29,23,200/- is considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee and added back to his income and to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated against the assessee separately". 5. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agra) of 2013 dated 04.09.2019; (iii) See Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. (P) Ltd. - vs.- DCIT [2020] 114 taxmann.com 492 (Mad.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the additions have been made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 69A by treating such deposits as unexplained money. He drew our attention towards section 69A and submitted that perusal of this section would reveal that it contemplates three conditions:- (a) assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery, etc.; (b) such money is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income; and (c) assessee offers no explanation or explanation is found not satisfactory by the ld. Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 2,13,00,000/- 13,87,33,090/- 16,00,33,090/- A.Y. 2016-17 Name of Bank Branch Address Account No. Amount of cash deposit(Rs.) during 8th Nov. to 31st December, 2015 Amount of cash deposit (Rs.) Rest of the period during FY 2015-16 Total HDFC Bank Madhyamgram 00232000011323 66,37,025/- 271,54,486/- 337,91,511/- Axis Bank New Barrackpore 913020041902854 251,48,960/- 12,24,20,305/- 14,75,69,265/- Total 3,17,85,985/- 14,95,74,791/- 18,13,60,776/- 10. A perusal of the above figure would indicate that the assessee has deposited Rs. 13,87,33,090/- during the accounting period of this A.Y. except the period of 8th November to 31st December, the ld. Assessing Officer has not doubted about these deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench in the case of DCIT -vs.- Roop Fashion reported in [2022] 145 taxman.com 216. In that case also, on identical circumstances the Revenue disbelieved the cash sales. The Tribunal has examined this issue in detail and then, compared the total sales of A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and deleted the addition. The cash was recorded in the books hence it cannot be termed as unexplained cash. Only thing which was required to be explained was the source of such deposits, which assessee has explained i.e. out of sale proceeds, deposits have been made. 12. On due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable. Accor....