9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the AY 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, is deriving income from 'business' and 'other sources' filed her return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 31/03/2018 admitting total income of Rs. 3,79,910/-. The case was taken up for 'limited scrutiny' under CASS for the reason that 'cash deposits during demonetization period'. Thereafter, notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09/08/2018 and the same was duly served on the assessee on 17/09/2018. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire, calling for certain information, was issued to the assessee through ITBA on 12/09/2019 in order to verify the genuineness of the cash deposits made by the assessee during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 41,46,000/- U/s. 69A of the Act under the head 'other sources' and charged the tax U/s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment by determining the assessed income at Rs. 46,25,910/- which included the addition of Rs. 41,46,000/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 of the Act dated 25/12/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC called for the information with regard to the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization. In response, the assessee furnished her reply. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC vide para 7.2.1 of his order did not consider the submissions and explanation given by the assessee and held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of purchase of raw cashew nut and after selling the same, the assessee and the other joint holder deposited the sale proceeds into their bank account and repaid the loan amount. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC have not considered the same and the Ld. AO has made the addition only in the hands of Posina Jaya Lakshmi, the assessee in the present appeal and therefore the Ld. AR pleaded to delete the addition made by the Ld. AO and set-aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has deposited the cash during the demonetization period and therefore in the absence of any explanation the Ld. AO made the addition and the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch (Karur Vysya Bank) and the said joint account was merely utilized as a conduit to transmit the loan funds and no other transactions were made in the said account. On perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it was the contention of the Ld. AR that the Ld. AO should have assessed the joint holders separately instead of attributing all the transactions amounting to Rs. 41,46,000/- solely in the hands of the assessee, and made assessment U/s. 144 of the Act treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. AO has totally misunderstood the facts of the case and made the addition in the hands of the assessee. After considering the above said facts and circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
