TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case. 2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC erred in law as well as on facts of the case by treating the 77.71% of cash deposited to the tune of Rs. 27306600/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of he I.T. Act, 1961." 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual carrying on the business as an authorized dealer of TVS Motor Co. Ltd. under the sole proprietorship concern Mr. Durga Distributors. Income of Rs. 44,47,190/- declared in the e-return for A.Y. 2017-18 filed on 7th November, 2017. Case selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) followed by validly serving statutory notices. The ld. AO on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the preceding year and also the sales have not increased to that extent. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee has failed to explain the source cash paid for purchase of immovable property between 9th November, 2016 to 31st March, 2017. The ld. AO accordingly, made the addition for total cash deposit in the bank accounts from 9th November, 2016 to 31st December, 2016 at Rs. 2,73,06,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed income at Rs. 3,17,53,786/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed detailed submissions but ld. CIT (A) without specifically dealing with the two components of the additions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the period of demonetization. Therefore it would be wrong to assume that cash deposited before and after demonetization in FY 2016-17 was proper and during demonetization the cash deposited was unexplained. 1.3 The AO is directed to assume that there was an increase of 22.29% in cash deposit during the demonetisation period compared to the same period in FY 2015-16. This amount should be treated as coming from business. The balance should be treated as unexplained. 2 Ground No.2: The appellant prays for relief and seeks permission to adduce fresh grounds of appeal and/or modify the same before or at the stage of hearing of the appeal. 2.1 Ground No. 2 is general in nature and no such requirement arose during the course of appellat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Lastly, he stated that when the ld. AO has accepted that the alleged cash deposit is on account of cash sales then the addition if any could have been made only to the extent of profit element that too if it is proved that sales were not recorded in the books of accounts. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of both the parties. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The addition for cash deposits during demonetization period from 9th November, 2016 to 31st December, 2016, are in dispute before us. The ld. AO has made the addition u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act at Rs. 2,73,06,000/-. The impugned addition has been made by the ld. AO on the basis of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rve that the assessee maintains various bank accounts. The comparative analysis of the total cash deposits in all the bank accounts during the preceding F.Y. 2015-16 and the current F.Y. 2016-17 has been reproduced by the ld. AO at page no.8 and 9 and the same is mentioned below:- A (a) Total cash deposits in bank F.Y. 2015-16 9,49,69,041 (b) Total Cash deposit in bank from 01.04.2015 to 08.11.2015 5,30,71,400 (c) Total Cash deposit in bank from 9.11.2015 to 31.12.2015 1,38,75,500 B (a) Total cash deposit in Bank F.Y. 2016-17 12,51,58,986 (b) Total cash deposit in Bank from 1.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 6,48,99,886 (c) Total cash deposit in bank from 9.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 2,73,06,000 C 1. Percentage increase between B (a) and A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 2016 to 31st December, 2016, is Rs. 2,73,06,000/-. Now, the ld. AO has made the addition for total cash deposits of Rs. 2,73,06,000/- without taking into consideration the actual cash sales for the very same period in the preceding year and also not considering the increase in the sales during the period. Ld. AO even not considered that cash sales declared by the assessee are subjected to VAT and are forming part of the books of accounts and shown in the VAT returns. Ld. AO without placing any evidence on record to prove that the alleged cash deposits are not recorded in the books has moved ahead to make the impugned addition and even included the cash received in new denomination notes. The ld. AO also erred in making the addition for ....