TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereby raising additional demand at Rs 26,38.512/- is improper, unjust and deserves to be cancelled that charging of interest u/s 234A, 2348 & u/s 234C totalling Rs 7,72,730/- is not correct & same be cancelled. 3. THAT any other ground/s that may be raised at the time of hearing" 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual and proprietor of D. N. Jewellers, engaged in the business of jewellery. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 23.11.2017 declaring income of Rs. 66,87,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the assessing officer (AO) recorded that as per information available with the department, the assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the form of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) in HDFC Bank and Rs. 2.12 crore in the form of SBN in Bank of Baroda. The assessing officer was of the view that cash deposit during demonetization period was abnormal. The AO issued show cause notice as to why such cash deposit should not be treated as unaccounted investment. The assessee filed his reply. In reply, the assessee explained that the assessee has not accepted SBN of Rs. 500/- or Rs. 1000/- after 08.11.2016. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,89,05,000 2,70,000 3. After considering the aforesaid details, the ld. AO recorded that assessee received the cash of Rs. 65,63,227/- apart from the sale of Rs. 1.36 crore in October, 2016. In the month of November 2016, the cash receipt is Rs. 11,68,624/- against the sale of Rs. 13,56,905/- from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016. The AO was of the view that there is increase in the cash receipt, the assessee has deposited Rs. 2.75 crore till 16.11.2016 against the cash in hand of Rs. 2.79 crore. The ld. AO further recorded that assessee deposited Rs. 25,00,000/- in the form of SBN in HDFC Bank, out of total deposit of Rs. 35.60 lacs during the whole year. The assessee also made cash withdrawal of Rs. 32.38 lacs, which shows that there is no precedent of cash deposit in this bank. Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited on 15.11.2016 and was transferred through RTGS, to his own account in Bank of Baroda. Such act of assessee was unusual. On the basis of such observation, the AO disallowed Rs. 25,00,000/- by treating as unexplained investment under section 69 and tax the same under section 115BBE. 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction has to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of ld. AO. Further, aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the ld. AO made addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- by treating cash deposit in HDFC Bank as unexplained. All the cash deposits are part of sale proceeds which is duly recorded in the books of account. The assessee is carrying business of jewelry formore than 20 years. The books of assessee duly audited. The books result is accepted in all years. All purchases and sales are supported by bills and vouchers. Day do day stock book is maintained with quantitative tally. All details are verified in depth by the survey party. During assessment, the assessee furnished audit report, cash book, VAT returns with details on creditors. The assessee also produced books of account which were verified by AO. No discrepancy was pointed out by AO. The addition is s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have locked their horn on the cash deposit of Rs. 25.00 lacs in HDFC Bank account during demonetization period. There is no dispute about the nature of business activities of the assessee. Similarly, the cash in hand as on the date of demonetization is not disputed by the lower authorities. We find that while doubting the cash despite in HDFC the AO held that the assessee received cash of Rs. 65,63,227/- apart from the sale of Rs. 1.36 crore in October, 2016. In the month of November 2016, the cash receipt is Rs. 11,68,624/- against the sale of Rs. 13,56,905/- from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016. The AO was of the view that there is increase in the cash receipt; the assessee has deposited Rs. 2.75 crore till 16.11.2016 against the cash in hand of Rs. 2.79 crore. Further, the AO held that the assessee also made cash withdrawal of Rs. 32.38 lacs, which is unusual when the assessee was having cash in hand. Rs. 25,00,000/- was deposited on 15.11.2016 and was transferred through RTGS, to his own account in Bank of Baroda. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view that cash deposit during demonetization period is exceptionally high, which was abnormal fact. It was also held that....