TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well as on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and in thereby taxing the addition at 60 percentage and levying surcharge at 25 percentage which is not applicable on above amount. 3. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e addition of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. Submissions of assessee are recorded in para 6 of order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee in his submission stated that during demonetization, the assessee made deposit of Rs.10,5000/- in his savings bank account. The cash deposit was out of past cash savings and income earned during the year under consideration. Reasonable quantum of cash available out of past saving is to be accepted. The assesse submitted that he has earned a rental income from shed @ Rs. 41,000/- per month and also earned brokerage income, bifurcations of which were furnished by assessee. The assessee has shown to have earned Rs.7,31....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount claimed in his cash book. The explanation furnished by assessee is not plausible to explain the cash deposit of Rs.10,50,000/ -. No evidence was furnished by assessee about income from brokerage of rental income from shed. Since the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit, thus, it was a fit case for making addition of Rs.10,50,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) further held that on perusal of computation of income, the assessed income is of Rs.15,94,360/. However, the calculation of tax contains certain errors. Thus, the Assessing Officer was directed to make fresh calculation of tax. However, no specific finding in taxing the addition at enhanced rate was given. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR of revenue submits that this is not a case of double addition. The assessee is not maintaining any books of account. The theory of cash available in hand is not supporting by any evidence. There is no proof that assessee was having any shed for earning rental income. Such rental income, if being received regularly, is not shown in the bank statement. The assessee is claimed huge cash balance in his hand, then why the assessee has withdrawn petty cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on various occasions as reflected in his bank statement. The plea raised by the assessee is not plausible and reasonable explanation. The explanation of assessee is beyond the 'human probability'. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made in the head of such income. The Assessing Officer doubted the source of cash deposit. On considering all the facts, I find that the assessee miserably failed to substantiate the entire cash deposit during the demonetization period. I find that Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) in its Circular No. 3 of 2017, on the issue of cash deposit during demonetization directed to accept the cash deposit up to Rs.2,50,000/ -. Thus, keeping in view the CBDT Instruction, out of total addition of Rs.10,50,000/- Rs.2,50,000/-is allowed. Further, keeping in view that assessee is regularly filing return of income and shown gross total income of more than Rs.6,00,000/- in proceeding assessment years and the income from other sources on account of broker....