TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man s angle/view, then that cannot be brushed aside by the AO, without disproving the explanation / facts or by giving cogent reasons. Statement of bank accounts of assessee (3 bank accounts) it is noted that assessee has deposited in his three bank account (pre-demonetization) an amount to the tune of ₹ 2,38,94,037/- and during (Post-demonetization period) the assessee had deposited to the tune of ₹ 2,38,94,037/- and it is found that the total bank deposit tallys with the figure shown in trading account i.e., ₹ 4,76,78,990/- (₹ 4.76 crores). So taking into account all these facts and circumstances and demonetization being declared on the night of 8/9th November, 2016, it is noted that AO has accepted the invalid currencies to the tune of ₹ 11,08,796/- because it was shown by the assessee in his regular books maintained as on 08.11.2016. The assessee s explanation in respect of ₹ 12,41,704/- is that it is the amount which has been deposited by the sundry debtors as on 08.11.2016 which is found to be correct for the reason that the sundry debtors as on 08.11.2016 was to the tune of ₹ 14,93,120/- as is evident from the list of sundry debt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chase and sales made by the assessee without supporting bills and invoices. The AO notes that the assessee has stated that the cash deposit in the bank account during the year was out of sale of dry fish. The AO noted that the cash as per the books of the assessee as on 08.11.2016 was to the tune of ₹ 11,08,796/-, therefore, he accepted the genuinity of the cash deposit to the tune of ₹ 11,08,796/- and the remaining amount of ₹ 12,41,700/- has been brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the same and also expressed his doubts with regard to the genuineness of the claim of business conducted by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is before me. 6. I have heard Ld. AR Shri Akkal Dudhewala for assessee and Ld. DR Shri Arup Chatterjee for Revenue and perused the records. It is noted at the out-set that the Ld. CIT(A) has made an adverse observation wherein he expresses his doubts about the assessee's claim to be in the business of selling/trading in dry fish which fact is per- se erroneous. Before me, the assessee has produced the survey done u/s. 133 A of the Act by the ITO, W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by the assessee. In the order passed u/s. 143(3), although the AO accepted the business income returned by the assessee but he separately added the sum of ₹ 60,00,000/- by way of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. On appeal this Tribunal deleted the impugned addition by holding as under: 15. Be it as it may, in the normal course, we would have restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh verification of the claim of the assessee that it had received advances from customers on the occasion of Ramnavami Nayakhata. In other words, we would have given the AO more time to conduct enquiries and investigation. In this case we find that these advances have subsequently been recorded as sales of the assessee firm and that these sales have been accepted as income by the AO during the year. He has not disturbed the sales of the assessee. When a receipt is accounted for as income, no separate addition of the same amount as income of the assessee under any other Section of the Act can be made as it would be a double addition. In the result, we delete the addition made and allow its claim of the assessee. [Emphasis by me] 8. Relying on the ratio of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income were assessed on estimation, then it would not be appropriate to simultaneously rely on the same books for making addition by way of 'undisclosed income'. Malpani House of Stones Vs CIT (88 taxmaann.com 546) (Raj HC) and CIT Vs Aggarwal Engg Co. (302 ITR 246) (P H HC) by relying on the above cited judicial precedents, the Ld. A.R submits that the impugned addition made by the AO u/s 68 after rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) was clearly impermissible in law and the same deserves to be deleted. And, therefore, he pleaded that ₹ 12,41,700/- may be deleted. 11. Per contra, the Ld. D.R vehemently opposed the submission of Ld AR and referred to observation made by AO at page 4 and 5 of his order and, thereafter to page 7 and 9 of Ld. CIT(A) in order to support their actions and in the light of the same, he does not want me to interfere. 12. Both the sides have been heard. It is noted that assessee is into trading business of buying and selling dry fish at Jagi Road, District Morigaon, State of Assam. The assessee's accounts are duly audited and it was brought to my notice that for the last seven (7) years the assessee's accounts are audited. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank deposits tally i.e. ₹ 4,76,78,990/- in three (3) bank accounts. It was brought to my notice that before November, 2016 (demonetization on 08.11.2016) i.e. from April to October, 2016, the assessee had deposited ₹ 2,37,84,953/- and from November to March, 2017, the assessee had deposited ₹ 2,38,94,037/-. And out of which only ₹ 12,41,704/- was added by the AO since it were invalid currencies. So looking at the volume of business according to Ld. A.R this amount ₹ 12,41,704/- cannot be termed as from any tainted source and it is probable that this amount is from genuine business transaction. It has been brought to my notice by the Ld. A.R that assessee is into dry fish business and his accounts are audited for the last seven (7) years. From a perusal of the trading account it is revealed that assessee has shown total sales in this year for a sum of ₹ 4,76,78,990/- and closing stock of ₹ 71,93,896/- and Gross profit to the tune of ₹ 16,83,317/- and net profit declared is shown at ₹ 6,00,240/-. The AO has not disturbed the returned income of ₹ 7,42,118/- so, it can be safely inferred that the profit embedded in sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. A.R is that taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, separate addition ₹ 12,41,704/- was not warranted. In this backdrop when I examined the statement of bank accounts of assessee (3 bank accounts) it is noted that assessee has deposited in his three bank account (pre-demonetization) an amount to the tune of ₹ 2,38,94,037/- and during (Post-demonetization period) the assessee had deposited to the tune of ₹ 2,38,94,037/- and it is found that the total bank deposit tallys with the figure shown in trading account i.e., ₹ 4,76,78,990/- (₹ 4.76 crores). So taking into account all these facts and circumstances and demonetization being declared on the night of 8/9th November, 2016, it is noted that AO has accepted the invalid currencies to the tune of ₹ 11,08,796/- because it was shown by the assessee in his regular books maintained as on 08.11.2016. The assessee s explanation in respect of ₹ 12,41,704/- is that it is the amount which has been deposited by the sundry debtors as on 08.11.2016 which is found to be correct for the reason that the sundry debtors as on 08.11.2016 was to the tune of ₹ 14,93,120/- as is evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
