Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 378 - AT - Income TaxAddition of cash deposit made during demonetization period u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the AO that assessee was asked to produced the buyers. AO also did not show that assessee was further statutory required to give more information than what has been already submitted. Even AO has not recorded the statement of the assessee to examine the situation prevalent on that date. The close circuit camera recording would also have substantiated or proved the claim of the assessee otherwise. It is also important that in response to someone by the investigation wing, the stand of the assessee is same. Therefore, no fault can be found with the claim of the assessee, unless the assessing officer further makes an investigation on that issue. In absence of any evidence of bogus sales, when identical information is available for sales recorded by the assessee prior to demonetization as well as post demonetization is accepted by AO, there is no reason that details produced by the assessee for demonetization sale is rejected. Mere statistics of preparation of number of bills, transactions cannot be used to invoke the provisions of section 68 of the income tax act when no independent enquiry by the AO is made. The necessary ingredient of section 68 of the act such as nature and source of the credit is explained by assessee. To make the addition, the learned assessing officer should have thrown back onus on the assessee by making an independent enquiry. The simplest thing that could have been done was whether the assessee was having the adequate stock prior to the demonetization or not. AO failed to do that also. The learned CIT – A also did not make any enquiry by himself or through AO. In view of above facts and circumstances, the addition in the hence of the assessee cannot be sustained. Decided in favour of assessee.
|