Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1381 - ITAT BANGALOREAddition u/s 68 - cash deposits made during demonetization period in all the bank accounts - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact accepted by both the AO and the CIT(A) that the cash receipts are nothing but sale proceeds in the business of the assessee. The addition is made for the deposit of SBN during demonetization period on the ground that the cash sales is inflated by the assessee. The amount of sales which is not disputed is already offered to tax by the assessee by reflecting the same in the trading / P&L Account. This fact is not doubted by the lower authorities. In that case, if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act, then it would result in taxing the impugned amount twice, once as a sales income and secondly as an addition under section 68 - As in the case of PCIT Vs. Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (2) TMI 1061 - DELHI HIGH COURT] on similar issue took the view that the addition under section 68 of the Act is contradictory to the stand taken while accepting the business income and that the amount in question have already been charged to the income of the assessee, cannot be taxed again under section 68 of the Act. Also in the case of CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad [1968 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] on the issue of additions under section 68 held that “It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash receipts represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed.” Applying this ratio, in our view, the assessee has discharged the onus by offering the sales for taxation and therefore the same income cannot be taxed again - addition made under section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. Addition made u/s 69C - deduction towards housing loan interest - AO concluded that there is no source for the repayment of housing loan for the assessee and hence treated an amount which the AO arrived at from the housing loan statement as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Addition upheld by the CIT(A) on the ground that majority of the loan is repaid in cash and the genuineness of the funds used for repayment has not been proved by the assessee - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the cash book, it is also noticed that the assessee is having sufficient cash balance generated out of cash sales as on the date of repayment of the loan. In view of the above discussion of facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee is having sufficient source explaining the repayment of housing loan and therefore delete the addition made under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
|