9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in deleted the addition of Rs.75,54,450/- holding that towards SBN notes deposited in bank account were normal sales and which were already declared. The learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the assessee has failed to identify the parties from whom the SBNs were received and they were purchaser of milk. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have noted the notification issued by Government of India and as per Notification, the assessee was not allowed to accept the SBN notes after 09.11.2016. 3. For these and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing it is prayed that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd deposited into bank account. The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to the AO, legal tender of SBNs from 09.11.2016 is withdrawn, and thus, the claim of the assessee for source for cash deposit is out of sale of milk products is devoid of merits, and thus, rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition towards cash deposits u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated his arguments taken before the AO and submits that being in the business retail sale of milk, he was forced to accept SBNs to avoid possible loss from the customers, because the products dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BNs during demonetization period to protect his business, because, the products sold by him is highly perishable. He further submits that there was no prevention for the assessee to accept/transact in SBNs during the window period between 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and the same is evident from the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. This fact has been rightly apprised by various benches of Tribunal, including ITAT Chennai Bench in number of cases, and held that when the assessee has explained source for cash deposits, the question of making addition towards cash deposits into bank account on the basis of Circular issued by RBI, is incorrect. Therefore, he submits that the Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay. But, fact remains that although, the assessee claims to have filed necessary evidences, including relevant sales details when compared to previous Financial Year, but no such evidence has been rightly apprised by the Ld.CIT(A) while deleting the additions made towards cash deposits during demonetization period. Since, both the AO and the assessee could not justify their case with relevant reasons, we are of the considered view that only possible way out to settle the issue is to estimate income from cash deposit during demonetization period. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also explanation of the assessee, we are of the considered view that a reasonable amount of profit needs to be estimated on total c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
