TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is a delay of 163 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons for delay has been filed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that the assessee was suffering severe knee pain and could not move and hence there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a dealer of Readymade Goods and other Cloth varieties on Retail basis. For the Asst.Year 2017-18 she filed her Return of Income on 15.12.2017 admitting a Taxable Income of Rs. 13,39,370/- with a turnover of Rs. 3,95,09,907/-. During the relevant assessment year the books of accounts of the assessee was duly audited by a Chartered Accountant u/s.44AB of the Act. 5. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued to assessee and requested to furnish the details of source of cash deposits made in the bank accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioned that the source is from the credit sales and also the turnover has been accepted by the TN VAT department but not furnished any of the evidence including the stock, purchases and sales details and confirmed the additions made by the AO by holding as under: "10.0) The contention of the appellant is not acceptable for the following reasons: 10.1) The AO in his assessment order has sought the details of total cash deposits made during the year including the cash deposits during demonetization period. This could be very well evidenced in para 2 of the assessment order, wherein the AO has requested to furnish details of source of cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessee, during the period of demonetization and during the year, with evidences. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the AO committed factual error by making the discussion about the "SBN Currencies" but proceeded to make addition of "entire Cash deposited" during demonetization period commencing from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 is not correct. 10.2) The appellant has submitted that when the returned Turnover has been accepted under the VAT proceedings of the Local Tamil Nadu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Cash deposit slips during the demonetisation period, Cash deposit and Cash sales - Comparison chart, Reply filed before CIT(A), Audited Financials, Audit report u/s.44AB and the Specified Bank Notes (cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. Further, the ld.AR advanced the argument by stating that the issue of cash deposit of SBNs has been decided in favour of the assessee at Hon'ble Vishakapatnam Tribunal in Hirapanna Jewellers (TS-361-ITAT-2021(VIZ)) and deleted the additions as these deposits are made out of business receipts. Further, the ld. AR also stated that as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act 2017 dated 28.02.2017, the appointed day means 31st Dec 2016 and hence the SBNs were ceased to be accepted only from 31.12.2016 and hence the SBNs collected and deposited is also a legal tender. Further, the ld. AR stated that an amount of Rs. 13,972/- recovered from the employees towards contribution to PF & ESI was paid after the due dates as per the relevant Acts, however paid before filing the return of income and needs to be deleted. 9. Per contra, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for confirming the same as there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... up by relevant evidences. Thus, the assessee has discharged the burden of proving the source of the cash/SBN deposited in the bank and the Assessing Officer failed to rebut the same. The cash deposit of Rs. 29,77,500/-, relied upon by the Assessing Officer to take an adverse view is not backed up by relevant evidence/material and therefore the action of AO and the ld.CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. It is trite law that no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Moreover, since cash generated out of sales has been credited in the books of accounts, the provisions of section 69A could not be invoked in the present case. The assessee's reliance on the coordinate bench decision in the case Hirapanna Jewellers (TS-361-ITAT-2021(VIZ)) which is identical to the present facts are taken into consideration. 12. Further, the coordinate bench decision in the case of Smt. Durga Devi Mundhra vs. ITO in ITA No.1228/Chny/2023, dated 25.04.2024 is applicable to the present case on hand, wherein the Tribunal held as under: "6. We are of the considered opinion that when the sale has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, addi....