TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emonetization period. The Assessing officer (hereinafter, the 'AO') provided six opportunities of being heard to the assessee to explain the said cash deposits made in the bank account. However, the assessee did not ensure any compliance during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the AO had no option except to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Act. Consequentially, the AO held the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 1,33,18,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act and taxed it accordingly. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the entire addition of Rs. 1,33,18,000/- observing as under: - "10.1 In the assessment order, the A.O. has stated that the appellant had made cash deposits of Rs. 1,33,18,000/- during FY 2016-17. The A.O. has observed that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits in the bank account No. 10007796011 and 5791060225 held with IndusInd Bank and Citi Bank respectively and for the facts and the reasons elaborated in the assessment order, proceeded to make the addition of the entire amount of Rs 1,33,18,000/- u/s.69A of the Act. 10.2 During the appellate pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red for taking into account on merits. 10.4 In view of several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the First Appellate Authority i.e. CIT(Appeal) is vested with plenary powers in disposing of an appeal, and that the powers of CIT(Appeal) is coterminous and coextensive with that of the Assessing Officer. It is trite that scope of powers vested with CIT(A) under Section 251 are coterminus with that of AO exercising quasi judicial functions. The CIT(A) is not only the appellate authority but also possess the power of adjudicating authority similar to that of an AO. The powers of inquiry thus, in a sense, run concurrently. It is true that the CIT (A) as first appellate authority has conterminous powers over the sources of income constituting the subject matter of the assessment, except the power to tackle new sources of income not considered by the Assessing Officer, and can do what the Assessing Officer can do and can direct the Assessing Officer to do what he has failed to do, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate, (1964) 53 ITR 225. The Karnataka High Court in Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills vs. CIT (199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the year) and the amount of each cash deposits ranges from 3 Lacs to 6 Lacs. On perusal of bank statement, it is also observed that the appellant has been making regular withdrawals and this is also supported by the account extracted in the appellant's reply as above. 10.7 Since the Gross Receipts of Rs 2,10,75,774/- have been shown for the financial year 2016-17 being year under consideration, which is more than the amount of cash deposits, I find force in the contention of the appellant. The appellant has not only deposited cash in the current year but also in the earlier years and has also explained the reasons for deposits. The corresponding gross receipts were recorded in the books of accounts and also duly offered in IT return. On perusal of the written submission of the appellant and ITR for AY 2017-18, it is clear that the appellant has recorded the Gross receipts of plying business in the books of accounts and the cash receipts, which is part of above gross receipts, are reflected in the cash book and based on the cash balance available, the appellant has deposited the cash in the bank account during FY 2016-17. 10.8 It is observed from the assessment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He further, contended that the AO, on one hand, had already accepted the returned income/gross business receipts and assessed income embedded therein and on other hand, he had also taxed the part of the business receipts as unexplained deposits under section 69A of the Act. It was contended that it was nothing but a case of double taxation. The Ld. AR further submitted that the respondent assessee, engaged in the business of plying of trucks, had 10 trucks as detailed in para 10.5 of the impugned order which were plied on hire. The receipts thereof had been deposited on various dates throughout the year. The business receipts from plying of truck were Rs. 2,10,75,774/-. Out of the said receipts, cash of Rs. 1,33,18,000/- was deposited in bank account in 34 tranches ranging from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 6,00,000/- per day. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the said cash deposits of Rs. 1,33,18,000/- were made out of the gross business receipts and the business receipts had not been ever doubted and questioned by the AO. Hence, he allowed the appeal. 6. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. Undisputedly, the assessee owns trucks as detailed on page ....