TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the source of cash deposit remains unexplained. The allegation of unverifiable sales and purchases were met before AO & CIT(A) by the producing independent evidence in the form of FORM RT-3 which is a VAT Annual Return under Bihar VAT Act, 2005. Therefore, partial disallowance of cash deposit during demonetization period is not legal and therefore fifty percent of quantification of disallowance Rs. 17,13,500/- is arbitrary and is therefore requested to be deleted. 3. The addition difference of Sundry creditors of Rs. 10,94,345/- was done arbitrarily without examining books of accounts & evidences produced before AO during scrutiny, AO in remand report & CIT(A), therefore this addition of Rs. 10,94,345/- is requested to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income showing total income of Rs.7,91,470/- which was selected for scrutiny in order to examine the issue of cash deposit during the demonetization period. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') passed the assessment order determining the total income of the assessee at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been disputed. Therefore, the addition of the same would result in double taxation of income. The Ld. AR has also submitted the copy of VAT return for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, cash books from 01.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and extracts of cash flow statement from 01.04.2016 to 31.10.2016. On perusal of the GST returns submitted by the appellant, I find that the appellant has shown the turnover of Rs. 13,75,08,826/- during the FY 2016-17. Further, there is no dispute that the appellant was in regular practice for making cash sales and depositing the same in his bank account. The AO has accepted the book profit of the appellant which also consists of the transactions recorded in the cash book. Further, no evidence of excess stock or any other unexplained investment was found during the survey. The sales were duly reflected in the GST return filed by the appellant. It can also not be denied that the appellant has been able to fully justify the amount of cash deposited during demonetization by furnishing independent corroborative evidence, Hence, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be most judicious and fair to restrict the addition to 50%. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e increase in the liability with corroborative evidence. However, the appellant failed to come up with documentary evidences to prove his claim. All the evidence submitted by the Ld. AR are related to the appellant and the appellant has not been able to present any confirmation from creditors or any other independent evidence. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 10,34,345/- is sustained and the ground is dismissed. Ground no. 13 pertains to disallowance of Rs. 197037/- u/s 40a(ia). This ground has not been pressed by the Ld. AR. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Ground no. 15, being general in nature, is not adjudicated upon. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed." 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. The assessee has furnished the written submission as under: "The above appeal has been filed against the order of A.O. passed u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2019 by I.T.O. Siwan which was subsequently appealed before the CIT-A(III) Patna on 08.01.2020 and the learned CIT- A-III passed order in this appeal on 28.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....njudicious in allowing only 50% of the cash deposited during demonetization period as judicious and fair. Once the sources are explained & accepted the question of partly being judicious does not arise and the whole sum of Rs. 34,27,000/- should have been allowed instead of 50% of it being Rs. 17,13,500/- 2. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITOR IN RESPECT OF M/S JVL GROUP OF COMPANIES BASED ON AUDIT REOPORT AMOUNTING TO Rs. 10,94,345/-. A.O. at the time of scrutiny has treated the balance outstanding in the head of JVL group of companies as on 31.03.2017 as per audited Balance Sheet at page no. 26 of the paper book Rs. 16,55,269.06/- LESS balance of JVL Group of companies on 1.04.2016 Rs. 5,60,924.3 8 as per the trial balance at page no. 42 of the paper book amounting to Rs. 10,94,344.68/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income without examining the books of account and the submissions. Subsequently, at the behest of the CIT-A, when the remand on this point was called by the A.O., A.O. in his remand report at page no. 19 of the paper book narrated a different story and came out with a different figure of Rs. 18,89,393/- as suppressed income and replying to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JVL Oil & Foods Net balance appearing in Balance Sheet JVL Group Of Companies 18,89,393.33/- 2,34,124.24/- Crl6,55,269.09/- JVL Agro Industries (Nf) NIL NIL Cr1,950.10/- as on B/s The above JVL Group of companies statement enclosed at page 28 to 40 of paper book as Annexure-F also shows a debit balance of Rs. 16,55,269.06/- comprising of JVL Rice Mill, JVL Agro Industries balances. The same balance of Rs. 16,55, 269. 39 - is appearing in the Balance Sheet at page 26 of the paper book & thus there is no difference. Similarly in case of JVL Agro Industries (M) which is in fact JVL Groups of Companies -Mustard account the companies statement at page 28 of the paper book gives a debit balance of 1,950.10/- as against the audited B/s at page 26 of paper book balance Rs. 1,950.10/-. Therefore, it is true & evident that there is no mismatch of account balances of JVL Group of companies as per companies statement as well as JVL group of companies statement enclosed. Therefore, the arbitrary addition of Rs. 10,94, 345/- sustained by the CIT-A is completely incorrect & is not at all sustainable." 6. We have considered the submissions made. It was submitted by the Ld. A....