TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1826
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the addition of Rs. 28,54,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessee during the demonetisation period. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer or AO"], vide order dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of food items under the proprietorship concern "Gulshan Sev Foods." The assessee filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017- 18 on 05.01.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edents including Roshan D. Hathi v. CIT (107 ITR 938) and Kelekhan Mohd. Hanif v. CIT (50 ITR 1), the AO held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under section 68 of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 28,54,000/- treating it as unexplained cash credit. The said amount was taxed under section 115BBE of the Act, and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) were separately initiated. 2.3 Aggrieved by the above addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that the cash deposits were fully recorded in the books of account as cash sales and were supported by the financial statements, cash book and bank statements. He also submitted the audit report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorised Representative (AR) appearing on behalf of the assessee reiterated the factual background of the case and drew our attention to the detailed findings recorded by the Assessing Officer himself, wherein it is noted that the assessee had furnished the cash book, bank book, purchase and sale register, purchase ledger, and certain confirmations, in compliance with the various notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that despite such documentary record being placed on file, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period, without assigning any cogent reasons for disregarding the evidence filed. 4.1 The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fictitious or inflated. The AR also contended that the entire amount of cash deposited was reflected in the regular books of account and considered in the computation of taxable income, and therefore, the addition made under section 68 results in double taxation of the same sum. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the assessment order, the appellate order of the CIT(A), and the material placed in the paper book filed before us. The issue in the present appeal revolves around the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 28,54,000/-, which we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reply (page 23- 24 of the paper book) reveals that for F.Y. 2015-16, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 62,79,375/- in the bank, while for F.Y. 2016-17 (upto 08.11.2016), the total cash deposit stood at Rs. 83,61,950/-. Similarly, comparative data of cash demonstrating a consistent and growing scale of business operations was also submitted to Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee had also furnished comparative ratios of percentage increase in cash sales and cash deposits over the preceding year, detailed month-wise cash flows, and bank-wise breakup of old and new currency deposits, which go to support the claim that the impugned cash was not a sudden or one-off influx of unaccounted income but rat....