TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], for the Assessment Year 2017-2018) 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned National Faceless Appeals Center ("the CIT(A)") and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara ("the AO") erred in fact and in law in considering the cash deposit of Rs. 2,93,28,000/- as unexplained. 2. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs. 2,93,28,000/- by invoking section 68 without considering the fact that the cash deposits were nothing but the amounts received from the debtors. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing on 31/12/2016, the Assessee had deposited cash aggregating INR.3,11,90,200/- in its current accounts maintained with the State Bank of India and IndusInd Bank. Out of the aforesaid cash deposits, the Assessing Officer treated INR.2,93,28,000/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act and brought the same to tax under Section 115BBE after rejecting the books of account invoking the provisions contained in Section 145(3) of the Act. 4. In appeal, the Learned CIT(A), vide order dated 15/09/2025, upheld the addition of INR.2,93,28,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the present appeal within prescribed time. Therefore, we condone the delay of 245 days in filing the present appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal on merits which are taken up hereinafter in seriatim. Ground No. 1 to 4 9. Ground No. 1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are directed against the addition of INR. INR.2,93,28,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act which was confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). 10. Briefly stated the relevant facts in brief are that during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that between 09/11/2016 and 31/12/2016, the Assessee had made cash deposits of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee the CIT(A) conclude that the Assessee had failed to discharged the onus under Section 68 of the Act to prove the nature and source of cash deposits and the creditworthiness/genuineness of the debtors. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of INR.2,93,28,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the Learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. 12. Being aggrieved, the Assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal on the above issue. 13. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee contended that submitted that the business carried by the Assessee involved high percentage of cash receipts, and that the deposits ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness model of the Assessee, cash-collection process, debtor realization cycle and the supporting documentary evidences (such as debtor ledgers, activation and subscription records, cash book and bank statements) filed by the Assessee. We note that while the Assessing Officer and the Learned CIT(A) have recorded adverse findings, the record also shows that the Assessee had claimed to have filed voluminous data and explanations. On perusal of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Learned CIT(A) we conclude that both the authorities have failed to fully and comprehensively examine and appreciate the documentary evidence furnished by the Assessee at the appellate stage. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) does not refer to the....