TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Here it is pertain to note that, the submission of the department is totally wrong. During the FY 2016-17, the assessee has made only 2 cash deposits in his bank account totaling to Rs. 3,92,500/-. One on 08.07.2016 of Rs. 2,20,000/- and another on 10.11.2016 of Rs. 1,72,500/-. Which means during demonetization assessee has made only cash deposit of Rs. 1,72,500/-. Here it is also to be noted that the said amount out of the cash withdrawal made by the assessee on 08.11.2016 of Rs. 82,000/- and Rs. 1,55,000/- on 04.11.2016. It is very clear from the bank statement that the amount deposited by the assessee during demonetization is out of the recent cash withdrawal only. One of such withdrawal on of 08.11.2016 only. The amount Rs. 3,35,18,807/- mentioned as cash deposits are not cash deposit but are the total of all credit entries in bank account and that also of the entire FY 2016-17. The bank statement is attached for the reference. 2. Further, as per the assessment order passed, the assessing officer has considered the total credits of Rs. 3,35,18,807/- as cash credits, which is mentioned in point no. 4 also of the assessment order, whereas in point no. 4.1 and point no. 6 the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sits during demonetization period. The appellant was asked to furnish cash book, details of daily cash summary and source of cash deposited during the period, the month wise details of gross receipts of F.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and month wise cash deposits from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017. No proper reply along with the books of accounts and evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,309/-u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Now before me in the appellate proceedings, written submission has been filed. I have gone through the written submission. It has been mentioned that the cash deposit has been made through RTGS. Proper evidences with books of accounts have not been filed to explain the source of the cash deposit. No comparative figure of RTGS deposits have been given of last three years. Even address and PAN of customers have not been given. Hence, the cash deposits made during the time of demonetization remains unexplained. Hence, the addition of the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appeal of the appellant is dismissed on this ground. In the order passed by the CIT(A), it is being mentioned that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4,01,990/- during the financial year 2016-17 whereas in her ITR filed for the relevant assessment year, she had declared total receipts of Rs. 2,79,58,681/- only. Since, in his view the assessee had no cogent explanation in respect of the nature and sources of cash credits in its books of accounts against the credits which were excess to turnover made in the bank a/c no.2170201000579 with Canara Bank, he held that a sum of Rs. 1,14,43,309/- was unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and he added them back to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the total cash deposited in the bank were only Rs. 3,92,500/- and the total amount credited in the said bank account was Rs. 3,35,18,807/-. The assessee also provided a re-conciliation chart before the ld. CIT(A) in which it tried to show that no portion of these credits of Rs. 3,35,18,800.23 was unexplained, with relation to its gross turnover as shown in the balance-sheet. It was also submitted that the assessee was not aware as to where the ld. AO had obtained a figure of Rs. 3,94,01,990/- from. It was submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed in CY 11,09,736.72 Less: Closing debtors balance (1,62,343,50) Less: TDS deducted (5,59,265.00) Received from customer 3,14,56,582.23 Add: TDS refund received 4,48,050.00 Add: Salary Cheque returned 7,818.00 Add: Credit against OD limit received 8,99,000.00 Add: Cash Deposited in bank 3,92,500.00 Add: UL received back 3,14,850.00 Total Credits in Bank 3,35,18,800.23 5. However, neither of the two authorities had taken any cognizance of the submissions of the assessee and had instead made additions to the income of the assessee on the basis of the non-existent facts and by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny, without following the proper procedure. Accordingly, it was prayed that the orders passed were bad in law and the additions made by them deserve to be vacated. The ld. AR also filed a petition requesting for permission to file additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had engaged one Sh. Mahendra Singh, Advocate for handling the matters related to assessment proceedings and was under the impression that the said counsel was making due compliances to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utiny" cases of CASS 2017 and 2018 cycles could not be taken up for complete scrutiny, unless there was credible material or information provided by any Law Enforcement/Intelligence/Regulatory Authority or Agency regarding tax evasion by the assessee. The ld. AR pointed out that the case had been selected for limited scrutiny for the purposes of examining cash deposits during the year and in the absence of any information regarding tax evasion from any agency regarding tax evasion, that the ld. AO was not empowered to convert this case into one of complete scrutiny so as to examine the credits in the assessee's bank account. The ld. AR submitted that even if the AO had such information, he was still duty bound to follow the procedure laid down in the said instruction and take the prior administrative approval of the concerned CIT / Pr. CIT, before expanding the scope of scrutiny to cover all the credits in her bank account. However, in the present case, despite it being clarified to the AO that the total amount of cash deposits during the year were only Rs. 3,92,500/-, comprising of two deposits of Rs. 2,20,000/- on 8.07.2016 and Rs. 1,72,500/- on 10.11.2016, a fact which had been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the ld. AO had asked the assessee to furnish copies of cash book, daily cash summary, nature and source of cash deposited during the entire period, month-wise details of gross receipts for three years and month-wise cash deposits for two years but the assessee had neither furnished any response or any documents as called for by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO after noticing that there was a contradiction between the total turnover of the assessee and the total credits in the bank account had added back the difference. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was also justified in rejecting the re-conciliation statement filed by the assessee as no evidences have been filed in support thereof. 8. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts are not in dispute. That the case was selected for limited scrutiny for the specific purpose of examining, "cash deposit during the year". While the initial information with the ld. AO suggested that the cash deposited in Canara Bank A/c No.2170201000579 was Rs. 3,35,18,807/-, after examination of the said bank account, the ld. AO had satisfied himself that the total amount of cash deposited into the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on any point other than that for which the case was selected for scrutiny and any such additions were not sustainable. In the case of Atul Gupta vs. Asstt. CIT (supra), the ITAT held that there was no valid basis for the AO to enquire into other issues while conducting a limited scrutiny, without taking the mandatory permission from the ld. PCIT and since the AO had not done so, the addition made by him was in violation of CBDT instructions and therefore beyond his jurisdiction. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Bejwani vs. ITO (supra), the Delhi 'SMC' Bench held that any addition on an issue beyond which the case had been selected for scrutiny was void since it was beyond the jurisdiction of the ld. AO. The ITAT Raipur Bench in the case of Rahul Bajpai vs. DCIT (supra) has held that the ld. AO could not have ventured into an issue that did not form the basis for taking up the case for limited scrutiny assessment, without getting said limited scrutiny converted into complete scrutiny and therefore, the addition made by him was liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. In the case of Dahila Infrastructures (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), the Delhi Bench of the ITAT h....