TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore (for brevity, the "Ld. AO"), order passed under section 144 of the Act, date of order 21/12/2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in wholesale and retail trading of mobile accessories, in the name & style "Gayathri Mobiles" at Thiruvananathapuram District, in the state of Kerala. The assessee filed the return in pursuance to notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued on 27/12/2017. The assessee failed to submit the return under section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The assessee declared total income of Rs. 8,70,900/- in relation to turnover of Rs. 5,06,91,098/- during the impugned assessment year. The Ld.AO found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Reserve Bank of India. The amount deposited in cash during the above two months is only Rs. 61.2 lacs whereas the turnover including tax is Rs. 81.53 lakhs, which is more than 20 lakhs of cash deposited and whereas the collection from customers is Rs. 121.83 lacs which is more than 60 lakhs of the cash deposited. The books of account maintained clearly substantiate the deposits of cash in bank accounts during the demonization period. The Books of accounts are available including Cash Book, Ledger, Bank Book, and Journal Register are enclosed and marked as Annexure A9. Further, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO grossly erred in concluding that the bank statement furnished in response to the Notice issued, was not relating to the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rwarded to the AO to examine the contention/submission of the appellant by allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. During the course of remand proceedings, in-spite of giving/allowing several opportunities to justify the above contention, the appellant, however, could not substantiate/justify, with credible documents, the above claim, therefore, the AO reiterated its finding given in the original order passed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act on 21.12.2019. The relevant part of the AO's findings, in the remand report, are reproduced, here as under:- "....letter dated 5.12.2023 was issued to the assessee calling for the following details: (1) Bank Statement for the period from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017 (ii) Documents....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against business of retail and whole-sale trading of Mobile accessories. During the remand proceedings the appellant, however, could not bring any material evidence on record toes the fact that the cash was actually deposited out of sale proceeds by producing the sales bills/ledger accounts, etc., against sale/trading of Mobile accessories during demonetization period whether only denomination of Rs. 500/- and 1000were received given by the customers, etc., before the AO. In the absence of these details the AO could not ascertain the authenticity of above claim of the appellant. On the other hand the AO had also not resorted to find out whether the cash deposit was fully unexplained one and not out of sale proceeds. On the other hand it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated as sustained. All the grounds of appeal are decided accordingly. In the result of the appeal is partly allowed." 4. The Ld.DR fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities; but was unable to bring any contrary facts against the submission of the Ld.AR. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee had deposited cash in all the months of the impugned assessment year, the details of which are already placed on record.: - Month Sales turnover as per Books of Account Tax collected on sales invoices Total consideration receivable / received Cumulative total consideration receivable/received April 26,73,794.02 3,60,525.53 30,....