TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of sportswear and sports goods and constructing sports synthetic athletic tracks has e-filed his return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,90,49,410/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and a notice under Section 143(2) dated 23.09.2018 was served upon the assessee. The information received from FIU revealed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 2,22,94,000/- in his bank accounts during the demonetization period and the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposits during demonetization period. In reply the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the additions made by the Ld. AO were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 6. So far as the first issue of cash deposit of Rs. 2,22,94,000/- is concerned which was made by the assessee during the demonetization period, while granting the relief by the Ld. CIT (A) the case made out by the assessee has duly been considered in the following manner: "i. The total sales and cash sale of FY 2016-17 are more or less consistent and commensurate to FY 2015-16. In fact, the percentage of cash sale out of total sale in FY 2016-17 is 8.31% against 9.98% of FY 2015-16. ii. The Gross Profit and Net Profit ratio of FY 2016-17 being 18.53% and 4.78% respectively is similar and comparable to the ratio of FY 2015-16 be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legal tender. The AO's argument that the cash deposit is not in tune with the regular cash deposits in earlier periods is therefore incorrect as never in the past there was any need to deposit the entire cash in hand in the bank account. viii. The assessee has furnished VAT returns, month-wise details of cash sales and cash expensed, cash withdrawals and cash deposit in bank and salary and wages and no adverse inference could be drawn. ix. The AO has not pointed out any unrecorded expenditure on the construction contract. Further, no defect in the expenditure recorded in the books has been specified and recorded by the AO. x. All bank accounts of the assessee are in Delhi and during the period of demonetization, it was extremely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ook nor the stock register is subjected to any adverse observation by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Further, no addition can be made under Section 68 in respect of the credit amount which have been recorded by the assessee in the books of accounts as sales and has been credited to profit & loss account. In view of the arguments summed up in paragraphs above, I am of the considered opinion that the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating the cash deposited in bank as unexplained is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of cash deposit in bank amounting to Rs. 2,22,94,000/- under Section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act is hereby deleted. Ground Nos.&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded in the books of account has been specified by the AO. More so, when the correct amount has been duly recorded by the assessee in the books of account as and sales and has been credited to the profit and loss account the addition in question under Section 68 has rightly been discarded by the Ld. CIT (A) which tantamount to double taxation. Further that, while granting relief to the assessee on the above observation the Ld. CIT (A) relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Agson Global (P) Ltd. (2022) 210 DTR 225 wherein on an identical situation where addition on account of cash deposit in bank during demonetization period was made, the Court held that such cash deposit corresponded with ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee along with return so filed for AY 2016-17 and Form 10DA for AY 2017-18 was not correctly filed. The Ld. CIT (A) considering the facts of the matter supported by the document so filed by the assessee before the authorities below found that Form 10DA for AY 2017-18 was filed through electronic media on 26.10.2017 i.e. before filing of the return on 30.10.2017 and thus the condition of filing of Form 10DA along with ITR is satisfied. Further that the newly amended Section effective from AY 2017-18 changed the definition and condition for counting the number of eligible employees. Inference drawn by the AO in regard to the difference in number of workmen at the end of the preceding previous year in form 10DA for AY 2017-18 is also f....