TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in suspecting the same on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures. (Om Prakash K Jain and Ors. [ 2009 (1) TMI 453 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . AO has not discussed any of the evidences submitted by the assessee. No word as to why these documentary evidences furnished by assessee are not acceptable to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not found any defect / irregularities in the documents and evidences submitted by the assessee. Therefore, based on the factual position narrated above, delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - Shri Dr. A. L. Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA For the Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short the NFAC ), Delhi, [in short NFAC/ld. CIT(A) ], dated 15.06.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 08.09.2017. Later on, the assessee`s case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 21.09.2018 by ITBA system and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 dated 8.02.2019, along with detailed questionnaire calling for various details was issued in electronic mode and served upon the assessee. In response to the aforesaid statutory notices, Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted the required details by E-Mode from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The details received from the assessee were verified by the Assessing Officer. 4. During the year under consideration, the assessee was in employment with M/s Mahavir Trading Co. In addition to that he was engaged in carrying business of manufacturing of corrugated Boxes Printing with the partnership firm in the name and Style of M/s. Akash Offset Print. During the year under consideration, assessee has deposited cash during the demonetization period. On perusal of information available, it was noted by the Assessing Officer that assessee has deposited Rs. 7,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee is a partner in partnership firm. The assessee put cash on hand for any urgency required in business. The nature of business is such kind that for labour or day to day requirement, he not deposit cash into the bank. On verification of cash book for three years it is clear that the assessee hold cash in hand of Rs. 9 lacs approx. till the demonetization period. As the announcement was made on 08.11.2011 that the currency note of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- will discontinued, the assessee deposited Rs. 7,00,000/- on 16.11.2016 consist of 700 notes of Rs. 1000/- in the bank account maintained with Central Bank of India The confirmation of same from the bank has been attached herewith. The balance cash in hand amount consist of notes which were still valid and acceptable in old note currency. Therefore, it is clear that the cash deposit made during demonetization period is but of balance available on hand. 6. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that in absence of any satisfactory explanation with respect to nature and source of cash deposit made during the demonetization period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions and attachments dated 05.12.2019 and explained the source of cash deposit (vide Pb.39 45). (4) Cash Book, Bank book and Bank statement and balance in the cash book was coming since last three years. I find that Assessing Officer has not refuted or discredited these evidences and documents. The Assessing Officer does not mention why he is not accepting these evidences. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer has just brushed aside these evidences without even a word on why they are not acceptable. It is a well settled law that when an assessee has all the possible evidence in support of its claim, they cannot be brushed aside based on surmises. It is true that the Assessing Officer is not bound to accept as true any possible explanation which the assessee may put forth, the Assessing Officer cannot also arbitrarily rejects the assessee's explanation. (Shree Ram Jhawarmal (kalimpong) Ltd us. CIT 64 ITR 314 (Cal.), Homi Jahangir Gheesta us. CIT 41 ITR 135 (SC). Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul Vs. CIT 12 ITR 441 (Cal.). Anil Kumar Singh Vs. CIT 84 ITR 307 (Cal.). Based on these facts addition made by the Assessing Officer needs to be deleted. 11. Moreover, the issue under consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
