TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reply was also filed before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings explaining the cash deposits. However, the AO treated the cash deposited of Rs. 58,50,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act observing that the assessee has made sales mostly in cash in the month of October 2016 from trading of jewellery and cash was deposited in the month of November 2016 during demonetization period and not deposited the cash before the demonetization period and the assessee could not explain the source for cash deposits. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of sale and purchase of jewellery from past several years. The assessee filed returns regularly and the return for the relevant assessment year was filed on 03.08.2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,02,420/- and a copy of acknowledgement of return is placed at pages 21 to 24 of the Paper Book. The Ld. Counsel submits that the books of account of the assessee were duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act and copies of the audited balance sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls were submitted. 6. The Ld. Counsel further made the following submissions on merits: - "Ground Nos. 1.3 & 4 have been raised by the appellant challenging the action of the Ld. A.O. of making addition of Rs. 58,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and that of the Ld. CIT(A) of confirming the same ignoring the submissions of the appellant. Documents relied upon/submissions 1. The submission as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. A.O. during the course of the 1st appeal proceedings and assessment proceedings. Copies placed at Page Nos. 1 to 20 of the paper book. 2. The sales doubted by the Ld. A O. and Ld, CIT(A), have duly been recorded in the audited books of accounts of the appellant. Copy of the audited balance sheet of the appellant are placed at page no. 25 to 46 of the paper book. 3. The cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant was duly, supported by the availability of cash with it in its cash book. Copy of the cash book has duly been filed during the course of the assessment proceedings vide submission dated 24.12.2019. Copy of the cash book is placed at page nos. 76-88 of the paper book. 4. All the cash sales are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts submissions. 11. On the basis of the above documents/explanations; we pray to your honor that the impugned addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), may kindly be deleted and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside." 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The primary contention of the assessee is that the provisions of section 69A are not applicable when the transactions are recorded in the books of account. The cash deposits made during demonetization period were duly recorded in the books of account by the assessee and the books were audited u/s 44AB of the Act. The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings furnished all the financials including the audited balance sheet and the profit and loss account and also copies of VAT returns, sales tax, assessment order, copies of purchase bills and purchase ledger, copy of stock register, copy of cash book, copy of sales ledger, copy of bank statements, copies of all the sales bills issued by the assessee to various customers, etc. Therefore, it is not in doubt that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal in the case of ITO Vs. M/s Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held as under: "9. We also find that Id. CIT(A) has rightly held that Sec. 69 provides that in case the assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article and same is not recorded in the books of account, it may be considered to be deemed income of the assessee in case he is not able to provide explanation or his explanation is not satisfactory in the opinion of the assessing officer. The same cannot be applied to the case of the assessee since the assessee has himself declared the amount of cash deposited in the return of income after duly entering the same in the books of account. Regarding applicability of the provision of section 69A of the Act we have perused the provisions of Section 69A of the Act which is reproduced as under: "[69A Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource. - (1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed." 10. Similarly, in the case of Sobha Devi Dilipkumar Vs. ITO (supra) the Vishakhapatnam Bench of the Tribunal held as under: "4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee being involved in money lending business, on the monies lent, the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 3,63,609/- as interest income and the principal amount was given as loan during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 to various persons and the same fact was recorded in the books of account which has been furnished before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. However, the assessee made cash deposits during the demonetization period and therefore the Ld. AO treated the amount of cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has disclosed the investments in the books of accounts and the computation of income which was offered for taxation and therefore the question of invoking the provisions of section 69A does not arise. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana in [IT Appeal....