9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 58,90,819/- under various heads. The assessee was requested to furnish the details of TDS made on expenditure claimed in P&L account. Though the assessee has furnished the details, the details of TDS made under various heads of expenditure were not placed before the AO. Therefore, the AO disallowed 30% of such expenditure which worked out to Rs. 17,67,246/- and added back to the income. 4. Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee required to deduct TDS on commission and painting works and the rest of the heads of expenditure TDS does not attract, since, the payments were less than the threshold limit for deduction of TDS. The Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee had deducted the TDS on commission and painting works and accepted the submission that the remaining heads of expenditure are not subjected to TDS, therefore, deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Against which, the department is in appeal before the Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR supported the order of the AO. 6. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has maintained regular books of accounts which were produced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest from VVCIPL and also deducted the TDS and the same was offered under the head income from other sources. Since the interest payments and receipts were of the equal amounts, no addition is warranted, accordingly deleted the addition. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the assessee had incurred the interest expenditure of Rs. 31,06,036/- and also received the equal amount of interest from VVCIPL, which was offered to tax. Thus, there was no excess expenditure incurred by the assess on account of amounts given to VVCIPL and hence no addition is called for. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 11. Ground No.4 is related to the cash deposits of Rs. 2,21,24,156/- made during demonetization period, which was added back to income u/s 69A of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has made the cash deposits of Rs. 2,21,24,156/- in the bank accounts during demonetization period. Therefore, the AO asked the assessee as to why the cash deposits made during the demonetization period sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in respect of proprietary concern M/s Venkata Durga Enterprises, which is a retail out let of petrol and diesel products under the dealership of HPCL at Kothavalasa. The Ld.CIT(A) after verification of bank account observed that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period was only Rs. 83,00,122/- as against the sum of Rs. 1,69,46,956/- worked out by the AO in the bank account of 62183479808/-. The Ld.CIT(A) also observed that the AO's finding of not revealing the bank account to the department was also incorrect, since, the bank account No.62183479808 was found reported in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2017 and the closing balance of Rs. 33,101/- was matching with the bank account. The Ld.CIT(A) held that since, the assessee has made the cash deposits from the books of accounts maintained, the source of deposits stands explained and hence that there is no case for making addition u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, deleted the addition. 14. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and the Ld.AR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 15. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding that the cash deposits during demonetization was only Rs. 83,00,122/- after verification of the material placed before him. For the sake of clarity, we extract para No.4.5.7. of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which reads as under : "4.5.7. I have carefully considered the issue and the facts of the case. In the first place the appellant had disclosed the bank account 62183479808 in his books of account. The completed P&L account consists of the turnover of M/s Sri Venkata Durga Entrerprises. The Assessing Officer's observation that the account is concealed is far from facts of the case. I have perused the balance sheet of the appellant and noticed that this account is found place in the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2017. The closing balance of Rs. 33,101/- is matching with the copy of statement of bank account. Therefore, it is highly improbable to consider that the bank account as concealed. Further examination of account revealed that the deposits during the demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 31.12.2019) is only Rs. 83,00,122/-. The Assessing Officer has considered the cash deposits of Rs. 1,69,46,956/- for the whole year. I have perused the account and found tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56/-. 16.1. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee is running Petrol and Diesel retail outlet and he is the dealer of HPCL and the Govt. of India has permitted during the demonetization period to accept the specified bank notes in the case of petrol bunks. There is no dispute that the cash deposits made were relatable to sales and duly accounted in the books of accounts and the same were deposited in the bank account. The Ld.DR did not place any material to show that the source of cash deposits were unexplained. As per section 69A if the assessee is found to be the owner of the money, bullion, jewellery and the same was not recorded in the books of accounts for which the source was not explained the same required to be brought to tax u/s 69A. In the case of the assessee the source of deposit was sales and the same was recoded in the books of accounts. Therefore, there is no case for making the addition u/s 69A and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The issue is quarely covered by the decision of Karthik constructions in I.T.A. No.2292/Mum/2016 dated 23.02.2018 of Mumbai Bench (supra) in favor of the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
