TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds:- "1. The Appellant, Sanjivani Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, respectfully submits the following grounds challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated February 12, 2025, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). 2. Erroneous Confirmation of Arbitrary 10% Addition: The CIT(A) erred in law and fact by confirming an addition of Rs. 14,57,208 (10% of cash deposits of Rs. 1,45,72,081) as unexplained money under Section 69A. This addition is arbitrary and lacks evidential support. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-level proof beyond reasonable explanation, nor does Section 44AA (maintenance of accounts) impose such a burden on audited entities like the Appellant. CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) - The Supreme Court ruled that the AO cannot impose additions absent evidence disproving the assessee's explanation, especially when records align with business operations. 5. Impermissible Addition to Safeguard Revenue The CIT(A)'s justification of the 10% addition to safeguard the interests of revenue" is ultra vires: Section 4(1) limits taxation to "income": ""Income-tax shall be charged... in respect of the total income of the previous year. Notional additions for revenue protection violate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h & Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC) The AO must disprove credible evidence, which was not done here." 3. Though the assessee has raised as many as nine grounds of appeal with interconnected sub-grounds, however, the only issue that I need to adjudicate here relates to the addition of Rs. 14,57,208, i.e., 10% of cash deposits of Rs. 1,45,72,081, as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and interest income of Rs. 1,69,070. 4. Facts in Brief:- The assessee is a Co-operative Society formed in the year 1998 under Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and had filed its return of income on 29/08/2019, disclosing total income at Rs. 1,27,000, under the Permanent Account Number - AARAS7485B. From....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest income of Rs. 1,69,070. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal confirmed the addition of Rs. 14,57,208, i.e., 10% of cash deposits of Rs. 1,45,72,081, as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and interest deleted the addition of Rs. 1,69,070, on account of interest income. While partly allowing the assessee's appeal, the learned CIT(A) observed as under:- "3. Adjudication & Decision:- 3(a). The assessee raised many grounds but all are pointing towards the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits of Rs. 1,45,72,081/- and interest income of Rs. 1,69,070/- received from the Central Bank of India. 3(b). I have considered the facts and circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is hereby partly allowed." 6. Having heard both the parties and on a perusal of the material available on record, I find that the assessee had filed its return of income under valid Permanent Account Number AARAS7485B and furnished the relevant records. The Department's own system continued to accept AIR data no a Permanent Account Number PAN no.AAVFS6355B, which was already marked as "surrendered". I further find that the learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation but proceeded to uphold an arbitrary 10% addition without any independent basis or placing any evidence on record. There is no concept to safeguard the interest of Revenue by a judicial authority particularly when facts are crystal clear. In my considered opinion, once the explan....