TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not initiated penalty u/s 271AAC of the ITA, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune ought to have appreciated that appellant's appeal against the order passed by the learned AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the ITA, 1961 was pending for adjudication before the learned CIT(A), NFAC. 3. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune erred in law and on facts in directing the learned AO to invoke provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the ITA, 1961 on addition of Rs. 1,54,68,128/- for cash deposits in various Bank A/c. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune ought to have appreciated that appellant during the reassessment proceeding, had duly explained the source of cash deposits in various Bank A/c. 4. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune ought to have appreciated that every addition made by the learned AO by default does not attracts provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the ITA, 1961 and the learned AO has adopted one of the plausible views. 5. The learned CIT (Exemption), Pune ought to have appreciated that the order passed by the learned AO is not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as appellant's entire income is anyway exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. The assessee is in receipt of government grant of Rs. 54,83,45,070/- which is 93.19% of its gross receipts which are Rs. 58,83,96,756/-. We further find that notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was also issued for assessment year 2020-21 on the identical grounds of cash deposit in various bank accounts and non-filing of income tax return u/s 139 of the IT Act, and the claim of exemption made by the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT Act was allowed by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2020-21 vide order dated 21.02.2025 and neither any addition was made nor the order was subject to any 263 proceedings by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. Accordingly, we find that under identical facts and similar situation the Revenue is giving different kind of treatment to the same assessee, at one hand Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune is proposing to make the addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act and for another assessment year no such action is taken by Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. We further find that the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts which were produced before the Assessing Officer and complete details of all its bank accounts were also produced before the Assessing Officer. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing balances. It was submitted by the assessee that the genuineness of M/s. Bajrang Cotton is established from the evidences like ledger account of M/s Bajrang Cotton from the books of the assessee, contra confirmation, return of income, computation of income, audited accounts, bank statement of M/s Bajrang Cotton and thereby, the initial burden onus on the assessee under Section 68 of the Act has been discharged. The assessee has also submitted that the funds advanced by M/s.Bajrang Cotton were from realisation of its debtors namely M/ s. Parents Cot Spin and M/s. Asha Cotton Co. whose ledger accounts from the books of M/s Bajrang Cotton were also placed on record. The assessee also filed the relevant copies of relevant ledger accounts of the said parties from the books of M/s.Bajrang Cotton. 3.7. The Tribunal after considering the aforesaid evidence produced on record before the PCIT as well as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee has been able to demonstrate the fact that the said amount of addition represented opening balances/trade creditors. The Tribunal also referred to and relied upon the following decisions to hold that such addition cannot be mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year: [Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company in which the public are substantially interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply if the person, in whose name the sum referred to therein is recorded, is a venture capital fund or a venture capital company as referred to in clause (23FB)of section 10." 5. On perusal of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, it cannot be said that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden of showing the identity and genuineness of the trade creditors na....