2025 (2) TMI 1767

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sit during demonetization period". Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. Assessee in response to these notices also made submissions from time to time. During the assessment proceedings, as per the submissions made by the assessee, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short "Ld. AO"] observed that assessee is doing business of trading on old iron scrap in the name and style of Shri Venkateshwara Old Iron Corporation and Koganti Metal Industries. It was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee has made cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 3,22,83,000/- in State Bank of Hyderabad, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Vijayawada. Assessee has submitted that he has deposited only Rs. 16,50,000/- in Account Number 52018273961 in State Bank of India, Vijayawada branch and Rs. 40,000/- in State bank of India, Bhaskerraopet Branch, Vijayawada. Assessee has submitted that in support of the cash deposits he has provided the cash book and copies of bank statements before Ld. AO. However, Ld. AO observed that assessee has not submitted any details during the assessment proceedings and thereafter proceeded to is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....FAC erred on facts end in law in confirming the following additions made by the assessing officer:- i. Cash deposits in bank u/s sec 69A Rs. 3,22,83,000/- ii. Cash introduced in books u/s 69A Rs. 67,03,425/- iii. Variation in cost of construction of property u/s 69B Rs. 70,08,032/- 3. With regards to cash deposits in bank u/s sec 69A of Rs. 3,22,83,000/- 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly upheld the addition of Rs. 3,22,83,000/-, based on the AO's erroneous claim that the assessee did not submit bank account and cash book records which the assessee filed before the AO on dt: 26/11/2019 and 16/12/2019. This way evidence on record contradicts the AO's claim, rendering it factually incorrect. 3.2. Both the CIT(A) and the AO overlooked the assessee's submission that cash deposits during the demonetization period amounted to only Rs. 16,15,000/-, rather than the projected figure of Rs. 3,22,83,000/-. 4. Cash introduced in books u/s 69A - Rs. 67,03,425/- 4.1 The Id. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the cash introduced by the assessee during the year of Rs. 67,03,425/-, u/s 69A of the IT. Act, without consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... record. In the instant case, the contention of the Ld. AO is that the assessee has made cash deposits into the bank account amounting to Rs. 3,22,83,000/- during the demonetization period. However, it is the contention of the assessee that it has made cash deposits arising out of the cash balance available with the assessee on 22.11.2016 for Rs. 16,50,000/- and this is the only cash deposit made during the demonetization period. However, on perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, we find that the assessee has not furnished full set of the bank statements but has furnished part of the statements particularly during the period November, 2016 - December, 2016. We also do not find the bank account held by the assessee with State Bank of Hyderabad in the documents submitted before us. In these circumstances, we find it deemed fit to remit this issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) by directing the assessee to submit the full set of the bank account statements including the cash deposits made during the entire Financial Year and during the demonetization period. We also direct Ld. CIT(A) to call for Remand Report from the Ld. AO and decide the issue on merits by providing op....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the value of the property will be as accounted in the books of accounts. Ld.AR in this connection relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ayush NRI LEPL Healthcare private Limited v. ITO in ITA Nos.135 & 136/VIZ/2023 dated 30.10.2024, he therefore pleaded that 15% for self-supervision charges and 10% for the difference in material rates shall be allowed as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. 15. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short "Ld.DR"] submitted that the copy of the DVO report was sent to the assessee for its rebuttal, whereas assessee has failed to furnish any reply on the DVO report. He therefore submitted that the assessee has therefore accepted the Valuation Report by the DVO and hence pleaded that the order of the Revenue Authorities be upheld on this issue. 16. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, assessee in Ground No. 5.3 of the ground has raised a legal issue stating that the DVO report is barred by limitation under section 142A(6) of the Act. On this issue, we find that reference by the Ld. AO to the DVO was made on 26.12.....