9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 16.12.2019 by the ACIT, Circle 1, Hassan (ld. AO) making the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act was dismissed. Assessee is aggrieved and has filed this appeal raising the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Was C.I.T. (A) justified was justified in sustaining the addition made by Respondent for SBNs of Rs. 12,00,000/- deposited by the appellant to his Bank A/c during the period of demonetization as Unexplained Cash Credits u/s. 68 of the Act. 2 Could the accumulation cash sales proceeds of appellant's business prior to the date of announcement of Demonetization by the Govt. of India, viz; 08.11.2016 and which stood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Advocate apeparing before us also reiterated the same. Thus, a request was made that delay is on account of sufficient cause which may be condoned. 3. The ld. DR objected to the same. 4. On careful consideration of the fact and where the ld. Advocate appearing before us has categorically stated that delay is not on account of assessee, but on account of counsel of assessee, who unfortunately misplaced the document from the client, who was residing at a remote place. As soon as the same was located, an appeal was filed. There is no malafide intention in filing late appeal by assessee. In fact, assessee carries the risk of non-admission of appeal if filed belatedly. Therefore, we find that assessee does not get anything in filing appeal l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act determining total income of assessee at Rs. 29,58,870 as per assessment order dated 16.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 6. Assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Explanation of assessee is that source of cash deposit is sales by assessee and from the regular business. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO stating that source of cash deposit made in the bank account during the demonetisation period remains unexplained and assessee was not authorised to accept the cash. He confirmed the addition. Assessee, aggrieved with the same, is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. AR has reiterated the submissions made before the ld. Lower authorities stating the amount of cash deposit in the bank account i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no further addition could have been made in the hands of assessee. Here assessee has also shown the nexus of sales and amount of cash deposited. In the decision of Sreelekha Banerjee 1963 2 ITJ 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that when the assessee has shown sales of SBNs and same remains undisputed, no addition can be made in the hands of assessee. In view of this, we reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs on account of SBNs deposited by the assessee in his bank account. Ground nos. 1 & 2 of the appeal are allowed. 9. Ground No.3 is not argued before us, hence dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
