TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....each year amounted to Rs. 2,18,39,700/- Rs. 2,19,73,195/- & Rs. 1,36,49,800/- for the A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2019-20 respectively. 3. The facts pertaining to the addition made in all the three years, it was stated, was identical with majority of the cash found deposited in the Bank of Baroda account of the assessee and some amount in the loan accounts of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of the entire cash deposited, noting that the assessee had failed to discharge its onus of establishing the source of the same, since the assessee only furnished details of persons from whom cash was received but did not substantiate it with the ledger account maintained by the assessee in this regard. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that it was a Co-operative Society, duly registered under the State Co-operative Society Act as a Seva Sahkari Mandali. That it was doing activity by way of purchase of quota items for lower/below poverty income group, such as BPL and APL Ration Card holders, like Kerosene, Wheat, Rice, Sugar and Fertilizers from the Government and sell it to members of BPL and APL Ration Card holders of the assessee Society as per norms of the Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....flagged under the Non-filer Monitoring System. After issuing a notice under section 148 on 31-03-2022, the assessee filed its return on 13-06-2022. During the assessment proceedings, discrepancies were found in the explanation provided by the assessee. The society claimed that the cash deposits were loan repayments from members, totaling Rs. 1,73,91,690. However, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence such as ledger accounts of the members to substantiate these claims. Additionally, the assessee had deposited Rs. 44,85,000 in its loan accounts with a co-operative bank, but could not explain the source of these deposits. Further, the assessee's cash flow statement showed an opening cash balance of Rs. 18,73,224, but it did not provide adequate records before AO (such as previous ITRs or audited accounts) to justify this. Consequently, the assessing officer concluded that the total cash deposits of Rs. 2,18,39,700 remained unexplained and invoked section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which permits the addition of unexplained cash credits to the income of the assessee. As a result Rs. 2,18,39,700 was added to the assessee's returned income un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....members of the society every year and receives re-payment also as a society activity every year. Hence, addition amounting to Rs. 2,18,39,700/- under section 68 of the Act made by AO is deleted." It was common ground that the findings and decision of the Ld. CIT(A) for all the three years was identical. 4. Aggrieved by the same the Revenue has come up in appeal before us raising identical grounds in all the three years and for the sake of convenience we are reproducing the grounds for the A.Y. 2015-16 as under :- "(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,18,39,700/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposited in bank account treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act without appreciating that : i) The assessee has failed to furnish ledger account of members from whom he has received loan recovery instalment in cash. ii) The assessee has not filed any supporting evidences to justify the opening cash in hand of Rs. 18,73,224/-. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal." 5. We have heard both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....book of deposits in bank from loan recoveries and trading activities of the assessee, and list of members being furnished from whom loan was recovered, the factum of cash deposits in bank account out of loan recoveries, has been sufficiently demonstrated. There was no need therefore, we hold, for any further evidence being filed by the assessee by way of ledger account of members. The arguments of the Ld. DR, we find, are devoid of any merits and hence rejected. In view of the above we see no reason therefore to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29th May, 2025. ============= Document 1 Society Registration certificate To.16018 of 1950. The Assistant Registrar hereby notifies that Hiroe Mom Jut hedut vivida karyekard Hahahari Kandidat meu Teljuice Hahnona Diatri lahmann has been registered wider sec.10 of the Bombay act. 7. of 1925 Kolmana. Datela-5-1950. Amsistant Registrer, Co-ope Societies. Hahoanas Document 2 The Mehsana District Central Co.op. Bank Ltd., Mehsana eil Heerlen fseelse el....