9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an individual filed her return of income for the AY 2017-18 electronically on 1/2/2018 admitting a total income of Rs. 7,84,640/-. The return was processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for 'limited scrutiny' under CASS for the reason to verify 'cash deposits during the demonetization period'. Thereafter, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17/08/2018 and the same was served on the assessee through email. Notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates calling for certain information through email and in reply, the assessee furnished the information called for. On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, it was noted by the Ld. AO that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 29,75,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 27,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing." 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee being involved in money lending business, on the monies lent, the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 3,63,609/- as interest income and the principal amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Ld. Revenue Authorities and the same may be sustained. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed facts that the assessee has disclosed the investment in his books of account and also shown the same in the computation of income which was offered for taxation. Therefore, the Ld. AR's contention that the provisions of section 69A are not applicable in the present case of the assessee as the cash deposits during the demonetization period are duly recorded in the assessee's books of accounts holds good. I have also considered the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana [ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
