TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 45,49,000/- u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) on account of cash deposits. 3. Ms. Uma Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the assessee narrating facts of the case submitted, that the assessee is engaged in the trading of furniture. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring loss of Rs. 6,78,748/-. She further stated that the Assessing Officer (AO), without considering submissions of the assessee, has passed the assessment order dated 26.12.2019. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) placing on record copy of the screenshots from the official e-portal of the Income Tax Department pointed that the assessee had furnished reply on 27.11.2019 in response to the notice i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... treated as undisclosed income, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House in ITA No. 613/2010 decided on 09.04.2010; (ii) DCIT Central Circle 29 vs. Subhash Chand Gupta decided on 25.05.2023, 2023 (5) TMI 1110; and (iii) ACIT vs. Hirapanna Jewellers, 2021 (5) TMI 447 decided on 12.05.2021. 3.1. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO has invoked provisions of section 69A of the Act to make addition whereas proviso to section 69A is not attracted as cash deposits are dully recorded in the books of account. The accounts of assessee are duly audited in accordance with the provision of section 44AB of the Act. The cash deposits are duly recorded in books of ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1996) 60 ITR 262 (SC). Hence, the tax rates applicable u/s. 115BEE of the Act on the amount of addition made u/s. 68/69/69A of the Act till AY 2017-18 would be 30%. Thus, she prayed for deleting the addition. 4. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Tripathi representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submits that show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 24.12.2019. The assessee did not furnish any details in response to the said notices. Since, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving source of cash deposits during demonetization, the possibility of assessee's unaccounted money being deposited in cash during demonetization period cannot be ruled out. The amounts have been written off in the same y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. Section 69A of the Act contemplates that in any Financial Year, the assessee found to be owner of 'any money, Bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article and such money Bullion, Jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any maintained by him..............'. The contention of the assessee is that the cash deposits in bank are duly reflected in the books and the source of same has also been explained with documentary evidence. Hence, provisions of section 69A of the Act are not attracted. 7. After examining books of the assessee, I find that in Schedule 5 to the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2017, the assessee has given details of advances from customers aggregating to Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there has been no cash sales in Financial year 2016-17 after December 2016. The assessee has also furnished month wise details of cash sales vis-a-vis cash deposits from April 2015 to 8 November 2015 and for the same period in the following Financial Year the same are reproduced here in below:- Monthwise cash sales vis a vis cash deposits from 01.04.2015 to 08.11.2015 MONTH OPENING CASH IN HAND TOTAL CASH SALES (Including Cash) TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK TOTAL CASH WITHDREW FROM BANK CLOSING CASH IN HAND APRIL 2526188 31182 1600000 0 1538738 MAY 1538738 53054 1107000 0 813365 JUNE 813365 1150000 0 427928 JULY 427928 1171439 1600000 0 16614....