TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts and passed the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 partly confirming the additions u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act without considering the written submissions and supporting evidence uploaded on Income Tax Portal and also denied an opportunity of being heard as requested by the assessee and hence, natural justice has been denied. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and as well as on facts in partly allowing the appeal arbitrarily and on ad-hoc basis, without adjudication all the ground of appeal separately and without a speaking order. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and as well as on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO of making an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- under section 69A of the IT Act, of the money received through banking channels by travelling beyond jurisdiction granted of "Examining Cash deposited during Demonetisation Period" under (CASS) for limited scrutiny hence addition made without juris....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved that total amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- has been deposited in cash during the demonetization period with Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Karhal, Mainpuri of which nature and source of cash deposit could not be explained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued letter to the Branch Manager of Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Karhal on 27.09.2019, and the bank replied vide letter dated 14.10.2019 that the assessee has deposited only 200 notes of denomination of 1000/- and hence, only Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deposited during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016). Bank enclosed copies of deposit slips and also stated that an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- has been wrongly entered and accordingly reverse entry was passed. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period in the bank account maintained with Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Karhal, Mainpuri. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of credit in the bank account maintained by the assessee with United Bank of India, Etawah bearing number 15610100108....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... response to direct enquiry made by the Assessing Officer with the bank. Only the addition of Rs. 200000/- was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account with Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Karhal by the assessee during the demonetization period, and the learned CIT(Appeals) has already granted relief of Rs. 2.5 lacs with respect to cash deposits during the demonetization period being accepted out of past savings of the assessee. Ld. Counsel submitted that only addition of Rs. 4.5 lacs has been confirmed, which also could not be sustained as in fact the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit entry in United Bank of India, Etawah. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has exceeded its jurisdiction because the case of the assessee was selected for framing limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the cash deposited during the demonetization period. This amount of Rs. 5 lacs was credited on 18.04.2016 in the bank account maintained with United Bank of India and it was not cash deposited, but it was a transfer from M/s. Shyam Construction throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmation captured by SFT, there was cash of Rs. 22 lacs in the bank account maintained by the assessee with Gramin Bank of Aryavart, Karhal, Mainpuri during the demonetization period, but the bank clarified to the Assessing Officer that Rs. 20,00,000/- was an errorenous entry, which was rectified by the bank itself and no addition was made by the Assessing Officer on that account. The addition to that effect was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/- being cash deposited by the assessee during demonetization period in the bank account maintained with Gramin Bank of Aryavat, Karhal, Mainpuri. Further, there was addition of Rs. 5 lacs on account of credit on 18.04.2016 in the bank account maintained by the assessee with United Bank of India, Etahawah, for which the nature and source could not be explained by the assessee. Thus, there was total addition of Rs. 7 lacs made by the Assessing Officer. In the first appeal filed by the assessee, ld. CIT(Appeals) granted relief of Rs. 2.50 lacs by accepting the contention of the assessee that the cash deposits were out of past savings of the assessee. CIT(Appeals) referred to Instruction No. 03/2017(SOP) and Instruction No.07/2014 issued by CBDT and or....