9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriate relief." 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is a HUF carrying business of trading in cloth on retail basis. Assessee e-filed its return of income on 05.08.2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,84,250/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2019 determining the taxable income at Rs. 41,34,250/-. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act representing the amount of cash deposited in its bank account during the demonetization period treating the same as unexplained. 3. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition as having been made u/s 68 rejecting the contention of the assessee that the said cash deposits were made out of cash sales. 4. Before me the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the Assessing Officer made addition in respect of cash deposits observing that the assessee has not given any explanation or evidences to substantiate the cash deposits. Ld. Counsel submits that in the course of assessment the assessee duly submitted all the details as called for by the AO which included cash book, bank statement, profit and loss account, balance shee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.03.2023; 3. Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO (194 ITD 702); 4. Mansukh K Waghasia Vs. ITO (195 ITD 99); 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. DR further submits that the Assessee has not produced the required information called for by the AO. In reply the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that all the information were produced before the AO and also before the Ld.CIT(Appeals). Ld. Counsel further invited our attention to the written submissions filed before the Ld.CIT(A) at pages A3, A4, page 2 and 20 of the Paper Book and submitted that the assessee furnished all the details before the AO and the acknowledgment of e-proceedings in uploading of the information which clearly suggest that the assessee has furnished the information. 9. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as furnishing of information is concerned, it is observed that the assessee furnished cash book, bank book, balance sheet, profit and loss account, cash details, sales account alongwith the submissions in response to the notices issued by the AO. Assessee also furnished copy of ITR, computation of income, cash transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Financial Year 2017- 18, which ultimately resulted in making the addition. 18. We should keep in mind that the fact for Assessment Year 2016-17 cannot be comparable with the fact of Financial Year 2017-18 or any other year because the extraordinary incident of demonization was unique to Financial Year 2016-17, the abnormal increase in the cash sale and their deposit in the bank account consequent to demonization could not be basis for the rejection of account and addition u/s 68 of the Act. The Tribunal Bench at Vishakhapatnam in the case of ACIT Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers (2021) 189 ITD 608 (Visaks) held as under:- "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the assessee has admitted the receipts as sales and offered for taxation. The assessing Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, officer made the addition u/s 68 as, unexplained cash credit of the same amount which was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard, it is worthwhile to look into section 68 which reads as under: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5] 212 ITR 417 (Cal). The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand in the books of account of the assessee, therefore, held that there was no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources and it was not a fit case for treating the said amount as concealed income of the assessee. The revenue moved to Calcutta High Court against the order of the tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the order of the Tribunal while deleting the penalty, Hon'ble Calcutta high court held as under: "8. The Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand. In the books of account of the assessee, cash balance was usually more than Rs. 81,000. There is no reason to treat this amount as income from undisclosed sources. It is not a fit case for treating the amount of Rs. 81,000 as concealed income of the assessee and consequently imposition of penalty was also not justified in this case." In the case of Lal chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court decided the matter in favour of assessee of the ground that it was clear on the record that the assessee maintained the books of accounts acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are relevant to the issue under consideration. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were 3 R. S. Diamonds India Private Limited accepted by the revenue as genuine and cash balance shown therein was sufficient to cover high denomination notes held by the assessee, then the assessee was not required to prove source of receipt of said high denomination notes which were legal tender at that time. In the case of M/s. Hirapanna Jewellers (ITA No. 253/Viz/2020 dated 12.5.2021), it was held that when the cash receipts represented the sales which has been duly offered for taxation, there is no scope for making any addition under section 68 of the Act in respect of deposits made into the bank account. 6. I notice that the decision rendered in both the above said cases support the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the addition of Rs. 45 lakhs made in the hands of the assessee is not justified, since the said deposits have been made from the cash balance available in the bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
