TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee before the Appropriate Authorities have been rejected by the Authorities. It is also a fact that the assessee is having only one source of income which is also not in dispute. The purchase of goods from which the alleged sales have been made by the assessee has also not been rejected by the Revenue. I find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, on similar facts, in the case of Anantpur Kalpana, Gangavathi, Karnataka [ 2021 (12) TMI 599 - ITAT BANGALORE] and M/s. Hirapanna Jewellers, Visakhapatnam [ 2021 (5) TMI 447 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] has held that when the sales have been accepted as revenue receipt, the same could not have been again added as income. We find the issue in the present case is also covered by the aforesaid two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 3 lakhs and upheld the balance addition. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : 1. That under the facts and in circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact in upholding the addition of ₹ 34,99,500/- out of addition of ₹ 37,99,500/- made on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank of the assessee including the period of demonetization. The addition should have been deleted in its entirety as no part of the cash deposits could be treated as unexplained. 2. That under the facts and in circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the cash deposited in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to appreciate that the addition made by the AO doesn't attract higher rate of taxation under Section 115 BBE of the Act as the rate is applicable with effect from 1-4-2017. Therefore, it could not be applied to AY 2017-18 and is applicable from AY 2018-19. 6. That under the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the adverse finding recorded by the AO are perverse and have been recorded with pre-conceived notions and without consideration/application of mind on the submissions/evidences/material produced on record and are vitiated in law. The observations of the Ld. AO are factually incorrect and is in disregard of submissions made by the assessee which is supported by large e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish the details of all the cash deposits appearing in the bank account and explain the source of cash deposits. To the query of the A.O, the assessee, inter alia, apart from various other submissions stated that the cash deposits represents the sales revenue of the assessee. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to A.O. A.O. noted that assessee has deposited cash during demonetization period and during the other period there were no cash deposits by the assessee. A.O. also noted that as per the details provided by the Bank, assessee had deposited cash in old currency denomination of ₹ 500/- and ₹ 1000/- notes aggregating to ₹ 37,99,500/-. A.O, thus, held that deposits of cash during the demonetization pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said he pointed to the turnover being matching with the sales register. He thereafter submitted that most of the sales have been made to identifiable parties, all the cash sales made have been declared in the VAT return. He thereafter on a sample basis pointed to some of the sales which are reflected in the cash register, the sales register, VAT tax on such sales. He further submitted that the accounts of the assessee are audited and no defect has been pointed out by the Auditor in the maintenance of the books of account and the books of account have not been rejected by the A.O. and in such a situation cash sales cannot be added to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. He further submitted that the purchases m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial on record to demonstrate that the details of cash sales filed by the assessee are fictitious or bogus. Further, the Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the VAT return filed by the assessee before the Appropriate Authorities have been rejected by the Authorities. It is also a fact that the assessee is having only one source of income which is also not in dispute. Further the purchase of goods from which the alleged sales have been made by the assessee has also not been rejected by the Revenue. I find that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, on similar facts, in the case of Anantpur Kalpana, Gangavathi, Karnataka vs., ITO, Ward- 1, Koppal in ITA.No.541/Bang/2021 order dated 13.12.2021 and after consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
