9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are common, for the sake of convenience, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under: "1. The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous on facts as well as in law. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 69 with respect to cash deposits made during demonetization period simply basing on names & address of the parties, invoice copies, e-way bills filed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made with respect to cash deposits simply basing on ledger account copies by debtors ignoring the frequency of dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,800/-, sum of Rs. 1,11,80,500/- is in Specified Bank Notes(SBNs) and the balance cash deposit is in regular currency. The Assessing Officer however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to the Assessing Officer, although the appellant claims to have received cash from sundry debtors towards sale of goods but failed to produce necessary evidences including confirmation from the parties to prove its case. The Assessing Officer further observed that on perusal of a few debtors account available on record, it is noticed that in almost all the accounts cash was received during the period from 1.11.2016 to 7.11.2016, whereas the sales were made many months before the actual realization of the money. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory and the nature of the business. Further, the assessee has filed all evidences including the relevant invoice copies, e-way bills of commercial tax department and ledger copies during the year 2017 itself to the then Assessing Officer. The assessee had also furnished very same details before the Income Tax Officer (Inv.). From the details furnished by the assessee, it is clear that the assessee has received cash from sundry debtors towards sales made before the date of demonetization and the same is supported by necessary evidences. When the assessee has submitted all the details, it is incumbent upon on the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee either by issuance of summons u/s 131 or u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016. From the above it is very clear, that the assessee was not able to explain the source of cash deposits during demonetization period but the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, simply based on certain details filed by the assessee which is incorrect. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, supporting the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that going by the nature of the business of the assessee, there is no dispute with regard to the claim of cash deposits from debtors. The assessee being in the business of supply of building material has dealt with unorganized sector which is prone to cash transactions. The assessee has filed all evidences including ledger copies of parties, e- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is against the principles of human probabilities. Otherwise, the Assessing Officer never disputed the fact that the assessee is maintaining a regular books of account and further cash received from various parties is accounted in the books of account of the assessee before the date of demonetization. Once the assessee claims that the source for cash deposits is out of realization of sale proceeds from sundry debtors, then the same cannot be brought to tax under the provisions of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the simple reason that the provisions of section 69 is applicable in a situation where the assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books of account, if any maintained by him for any source of income and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not be sufficient to take an adverse view on the assessee. Since the assessee has justified the source for cash deposits during the demonetization period with necessary evidences, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the learned CIT (A) to delete the addition made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, we are inclined to upheld the findings of the learned CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. C.O No.8/Hyd/2022 9. The assessee has filed cross objection with a delay of 200 days and not offered any explanation for the delay in filing of the Cross Objection. Although the appellant claims that the Counsel who representing the case before the authorities was under medical treatment during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
