TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on on account of suppressed sales after due verification of bank statements and submissions of the assessee. iv. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm and had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2019-20. The Department received information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 3,65,78,200/- and on verification with bank account statement, it was found that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 1,82,89,100/-. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act'). A notice u/s.148(b) was issued to the assessee to show-cause as why notice u/s.148 of the Act should not be issued. In response, assessee had submitted the balance sheet, profit &loss account of Shri G. Venkatesulu and stated as under:- "With reference to the above subject. I would like to inform you that I am Gutha Venkatesulu (With Individual PAN: ALWPG8305K) hailed from small village near Tiruttani without any educational and financial backg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Firm PAN which was never used instead of my individual PAN." 3.1 The AO was not convinced with the reply of assessee and found that there is difference of Rs. 1,97,90,932/- between the total deposit and turn over and cash deposit of Rs. 1,82,89,100/- was unexplained. Therefore, the AO passed order u/s.148A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2013 and notice u/s.148 was issued. The assessee had not filed the return of income in response to the notice. Though sufficient opportunities were given, assessee had not filed the return of income. Therefore the AO completed the assessment based on the information available with the Department by holding that sales of Jai Plastic Industries (firm) was suppressed to the tune of Rs. 2,77,23,182/-. Therefore, the net profit of the assessee is taken at Rs. 2,45,60,340/- after reducing the net loss declared by the Jai Plastic Industries(Prop. Gutha Venkatesulu) of Rs. 31,62,842/- and added to the total income as unexplained business income of the assessee by passing an order U/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 01.03.2024. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Per contra, the Ld.AR for the assessee stated that Mr.Gutha Venkatesulu is an Individual residing at D.No. 1/205. Kamaraj Street, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur and is a businessman running various businesses under different trade names as mentioned below. Sri Lakshmi Tyres (MRF Tyre Dealership) Jai Plastics Industries (Manufacture of Plastic crates) VM Tomato (Trading in Tomato) Transport Business (Income offered u/s 44AE) His PAN is ALWPG8305K. He filed his Return of Income for AY 201920 on 19.03.2020 by declaring a Total Income of Rs. 4,10,770/- and paid a tax of Rs 34,958/-. Mr.Gutha Venkatesulu opened two Bank Accounts in Andhra Bank, Tiruttani Branch, Tamilnadu (currently Union Bank of India) in the Trade Name of Jai Plastic Industries. The details of the bank account are as follows, Name of the Bank: Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) Branch: Tiruttani Account No.: 21 1311100002050 Type of Account: Current Account Account No.: 211313100000566 Type of Account: Cash Credit Account The bank account was meant to operate business transactions of trade in plastics business under the tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi who deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, NaFAC, Delhi in the hands of the partnership firm. 7.3 Further, the Ld.AR relied on the following case laws:- (i) The Surat Bench of ITAT have held that addition cannot be made when cash deposits were already offered to tax in other's hands. In Vasant Traders Vs Income Tax Officer, ITA No 801/SRT/2023, the Surat bench of the ITAT held as follows, 9. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that the Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of information that bank account No. 20102501515 contains the PAN of Vasant Traders (irm). We find that during assessment, the assessee submitted that the partnership firm stand closed on 01. 04. 2008. The er-partner of assessee-firm filed his affidavit and contended that original dissolution deed in not traceable as more than 10 years have passed. The Assessing Officer insisted for producing original dissolution deed. In the absence of dissolution deed, the Assessing Officer treated the transaction in the bank account as unexplained cash cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posit in the bank account maintained by that assessee having PAN AASPN3795R is arising out of the cash sales made by that assessee and thus, the issue for which the addition made by the ld. AO was deleted based on these set of facts by the ld. CIT(A). Based on these set of facts the bench noted the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is after careful persuasion of the records and it is also a rule that the same income cannot be (axed in the hands of the two person, when in the case of MRs. Kanta Devi Nagda the deposit of cash into the same bank account has been considered by the said assessee AO there is no need to again taxed the assessee firm which is dissolved in the year 2012 as unexplained cash deposit. Ergo, we do not find any merits in the grounds of the appeal of the revenue, and we do not find any infirmity in the detailed finding of the ld. CIT(A)". (iii) In Kamakshiben Mayashankar Vyas Vs Income Tax Officer, ITA No 408/Ahd/2024, the Ahmedabad Bench of the ITAT held as follows. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee, the findings of the AO and the CIT(A), and the material on record. It is evident that the primary dispute revolves around the use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 69A of the Act was made without proper examination of the appellant's books of account and relevant financial records. (iv) In Kishan Singh & Associates Vs Income-Tax Officer, ITA No. 1688/DEL/2021 the Delhi Bench of the ITAT held as follows. "5. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on records. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee is a partnership firm, that has already stood dissolved. Hence, the impugned assessment order has been framed against the non-existent entity. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) did not accept the claim of assessee regarding dissolution of firm on the ground that PAN No. AAGFK8991A was allotted subsequently. after elapse of 17 months. However, the case of assessee is that bank account in question is being held and operated by Ms. Aarti Chauhan in her individual capacity. Learned DR could not controvert the fact that Ms. Aarti Chauhan has duly owned up the bank account. In my considered view this vital fact escaped the attention of learned CIT (Appeals). I therefore, looking to the totality of facts hereby direct the AO to delete the impugned additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment was re-opened based on the information of bank deposits as per the PAN. During the course of the assessment proceedings, Mr G. Venkatesulu stated that the PAN of the firm was inadvertently provided to the bank while updating the KYC instead of individual PAN. However, the AO did not consider the same and assessed the difference in total credits and the turnover considered in the ROI of the individual as income of the firm and passed an order. On appeal with the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee furnished the entire details of the transactions, letter issued by the Banker stating that the error had occurred in mapping the PAN at the time of updation of KYC, financials and return of income of the Individual of the business carried out in the same name (Jai Plastic Industries) and the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the additions in the assessee's hand as these bank transactions are related to the individual. 8.1 We note that the identical issue was decided by this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2018-19 in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 2015/Chny/2024 dated 17.01.2025. 8.2 In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the transactions of the....