TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the assessee in this particular period has made substantial cash deposits in the Bank A/c. Therefore, the lower authorities, in my opinion, have erred in disbelieving the submissions made by the assessee, An identical issue came in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Agson Global (P) Ltd [ 2022 (1) TMI 848 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT (A) of Rs.73.13 crores in respect of cash deposits made with the Bank during demonetization period. Thus NFAC was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.30.00 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer in the Bank A/c during the demonetization period in old currency notes of Rs.1000. Accordingly, the order of the NFAC on this issue is set aside and the grounds raised on this issue are allowed. Addition on account of low withdrawals - Addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the NFAC is concerned, the same, in my opinion, is purely based on presumptions and surmises without bringing any material on record to suggest that the assessee has incurred more expenditure than what has been shown in the capital a/c towards withdrawals. There is noting on record to suggest that the assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1000 notes No.of Rs.500 notes Amount (Rs.) 1 11.11.2016 1000 - 10,00,000 2 15.11.2016 1000 - 10,00,000 3 23.11.2016 1000 - 10,00,000 T O T A L 30,00,000 4. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that there was no sale to the extent of Rs.30.00 lakhs which the assessee explained to be the source of deposit made in the Bank A/c. The Assessing Officer therefore, rejected the book result and computed the net profit at Rs.12,27,647/-the details of which are as under: Sales/Gross receipts of business as per R.O.I filed for the A.Y 2017-18 Rs.11,06,88,297 Less: Sale Proceeds in old denomination Rs.30,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok it is seen that it is all prepared as an afterthought to support the deposit of cash during demonetization period. Cash sale has not been shown as comparative sale in earlier years or later years. So all these are clearly on afterthought by the appellant. During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant has not submitted balance sheet to prove the cash in hand which is deposited in bank account. The onus is upon the assessee to furnish the concrete documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposit. Here, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding the source of cash deposit. Therefore, in the absence of any concrete details regarding the source of cash deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- is remains as unexplained u/s 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. So far as added income of the appellant Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of low drawing. Appellant has to stated that An amount Rs. 7,40,508/- i drawn for personal expenses . Appellant has not given any proof of his claim about his business expenditure and personal expenditure like bill/vouchers and certificate etc. In the absence of documentary evidence the contention of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the details of cash sales from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017: Month Year Cash Sales April, 2016 42,35,445.00 May 2016 48,42,932.60 June, 2016 75,97,847.00 July, 2016 48,30,725.00 August 2016 54,99,673.00 September 2016 84,46,503.00 October 2016 73,09,041.00 November 2016 45,86,969.00 December, 2016 70,59,060.00 January 2017 89,42,716.00 February 2017 80,73,900.00 March 2017 78,23,539.00 7,92,48,350.60 12. Referring to page 176 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the details of cash sales from 1.4.2016 to 8.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,03,862 47,18,650 3,19,98,486 3,51,07,890 - 45,98,567 14. Referring to page 178 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the details of month-wise cash sales and cash deposits from 1.4.2016 to 8.11.2016: Month Year Opening cash in hand Cash sales Cash deposited in Bank IOB Cash deposited in Bank SBI Cash withdrawal from Bank Closing cash on hand April, 2016 8,61,689 42,35,445.00 - 77,02,600 - 10,60,184 May 2016 10,60,184 48,42,932.60 - 66,85,136 - 10,79,493 June 2016 10,79,493 75,97,847 - 81,06,640 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40,000/- by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT (A) is concerned, he submitted that there is nothing on record before the revenue authorities that the assessee has spent more than what has been disclosed in the capital a/c towards withdrawals. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the NFAC is purely based on surmises and presumptions. He submitted that surmises and presumptions however strong may be, cannot be the basis for addition. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned NFAC on this issue should also be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. 18. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the NFAC. He submitted that when the assessee himself has admitted that he has made cash sales during the demonetization period in old currency notes, which is illegal, therefore, the source of such deposits in the Bank A/c remains unexplained and therefore, the NFAC was fully justified in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the additions sustained by the CIT (A) on account of low withdrawal is concerned, he submitted that the withdrawal shown by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Agson Global (P) Ltd (Supra). In that case, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.99.04 crores to the total income of the assessee apart from other additions on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) restricted the addition of Rs.73.13 crores. The Tribunal deleted the additions sustained by the CIT (A) of Rs.73.13 crores in respect of cash deposits made with the Bank during demonetization period. In appeal by the Revenue, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under: 17.6. Having regard to the extensive material which has been examined by the Tribunal, in particular, the trend of cash sales and corresponding cash deposited by the assessee with earlier years, we are of the view that there was nothing placed on record-which could have persuaded the Tribunal to conclude that the assessee had, in fact, earned unaccounted income i.e., made cash deposits which were not represented by cash sales. Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly found in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition made by CIT(A) of Rs.73.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
