Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 896 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - cash sales undertaken in demonetised cash after 08/11/2016 - cash sales shown by the assessee dafter 08/11/2016 in demonetised currency when the business of the assessee is not among persons permitted to accept demonetised cash after 08/11/2016 - HELD THAT:- We find that there was sufficient cash balance with the assessee The Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, defines “appointed day” vide Section 2(1)(a). As per Section 2(1)(a), “appointed day” means the 31st Day of December 2016. Section 5 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 also deals with prohibition on holding, transferring or receiving specified bank notes. Section 5 states that “On and from the appointed day, no person shall knowingly or voluntarily, hold, transfer or receive any specified bank note”. We therefore, find that the specified bank notes can be measured in monetary terms since the guarantee of the Central Government and the liability of Reserve Bank of India does not cease to exist till 31.12.2016. In view of the above, the contention of the Ld.DR, treating the receipt of SBNs from cash sales as illegal and thereby invoking the provisions of section 69A is not valid in law. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue. Admission of additional evidences - As argued CIT(A) ought to have referred the evidence produced by the assessee in the form of paper book to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- AO has provided various opportunities to the assessee to explain the details of share transactions and provide documents in support of his claim, wherein, the assessee failed to produce any cogent evidence and information in support of his claim. However, the assessee produced documents before the Ld.CIT(A). That being the position, the Ld.CIT(A) must have remitted the matter back to AO for examination by applying the provisions of Rule 46A. However we find merit in the argument of the Ld.AR, that no additional evidence produced before the Ld.CIT(A) which was not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. It is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has only verified the authenticity of the claim made by the assessee in the return of income, and we find that there is no requirement by the Ld.CIT(A) to remit the matter back to AO for examination. In view of the above findings, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
|