9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of plying and hiring of trucks, had filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs.9,61,520/-. The assessee in his return of income had offered income from plying and hiring of trucks u/s. 44AE of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had during the demonetization period, i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, made cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs in his three bank accounts, as under: Sr. No. Name of the bank Type Amount deposited Denominations 1 Punjab and Sind Bank, Raipur 02981000008865 Saving 3,00,000 500 x 200 (1 Lakh) 1000 x 200(2 Lakh) 2 Punjab and Sind Bank, Raipur 02981100004062 Saving 36,00,000 500 x 1600 (8 Lakh) 500x1600 (8 Lakh) 500 x 800 (4 Lakh) 500 x 800 (4 Lakh) 500 x 800 (4 Lakh) 500 x 800 (4 Lakh) 3 Punjab and Sind Bank, Raipur 11571100000074 Current 23,00,000 500 x 1400 (7 Lakh) 100 x 300 (3 Lakh) 500 x 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that the story of the assessee was an afterthought which was fortified by the fact that he remaining under a strong belief that his case would not be picked up for scrutiny assessment filed his return of income for the subject year on 30.03.2018, whereas the "due date" for filing the same was 31.07.2017. The A.O further observed that though the assessee in his written submissions, dated 24.12.2019 filed with the A.O had shown the closing cash in hand as on 31.03.2017 at Rs.22,95,424/- but on perusal of the return of income filed for A.Y.201718, the cash balance in Schedule BP in roe E12 was shown at Rs.1,55,240/-. 5. The A.O, observing that as the assessee had failed to explain the "nature" and "source" of the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs made in SBNs by the assessee during the demonetization period thus, held the entire amount as his unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019, after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs.71,61,520/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,95,424/- in his written submission dated 24.12.2019 but on perusal of return of income filed for A.Y 2017-18, it was observed by the AO that cash balance in return in Schedule BP in roe E12 has been shown to Rs.1,55,240/-. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO. Therefore, the additions on account of cash deposits of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) of Rs.62,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act is confirmed. Hence, the grounds of appeal are Dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee submitted that the A.O had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in treating the duly explained cash deposits in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs made in the bank accounts during the demonetization period as the assessee's unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the assessee had vide his reply dated 05.12.2019 explained the source of the cash deposits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in his bank accounts for multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was no justifiable reason that as to why the assessee had not deposited the entire amount of cash during the demonetization period in a single go and had spread over the same on different dates; (ii) there was no reason for the assessee to have kept the substantial amount of cash with him instead of deposing the same in his bank account; (iii) that if the money as claimed by the assessee was withdrawn for the purpose of his business, then why the same was deposited in his savings bank account and not in his current account; (iv) that the cash in hand as per written submission dated 24.12.2019 filed by the assessee was Rs.22,95,424/-, but the same as per his return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2017-18, in Schedule BP was shown at Rs.1,55,240/-; (v) the assessee had delayed the filing of his return of income for the year under consideration expecting that the same would not be picked up for scrutiny assessment; and (vi) that the fact that the total business receipts of the assessee aggregated to Rs.86.01 lacs (approx.) and expenses claimed by him were Rs.77.26 lacs (approx.) but the assessee had mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 981000008865 : Rs.3,00,000/-; (ii) Savings Bank account No.02981100004062 : Rs.36,00,000/-; and (iii) Current Bank account No.11571100000074 : Rs.23,00,000/-. It is the claim of the assessee that the aforesaid cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs (supra) in SBNs made in his bank accounts during the demonetization period were made out of the cash in hand available with him which, in turn was sourced out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra) made from his aforementioned bank account No. No.02981000008865 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Raipur during the predemonetization period, i.e. 09.09.2016 to 29.09.2016. Out of the aforesaid withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra), the assessee claims to have made cash deposits of Rs. 20 lacs in his bank accounts during the predemonetisation period, i.e. on 27.10.2016. 15. We are of a firm conviction that as the availability of cash in hand of Rs.78.80 lacs (supra) [Rs.98.80 lacs (-) Rs.20 lacs] with the assessee had not been dislodged by the department, therefore, there could have been no justification for rejecting his claim that the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs (supra) in SBNs made in his bank accounts during the demonetisation period were sourced ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject cash deposits, there can be no justification for the A.O to have drawn adverse inferences for the reason that the subject deposits were made in tranches over a period of time and not in a single go. 19. Apropos the observation of the A.O that as to why the assessee had not deposited the entire amount of cash that was withdrawn by him in the month of September, 2016 from his bank account i.e. 19.09.2016 to 30.09.2016, and had kept the same with himself, we are of the view that there could be multiple reasons for the same. As observed by us hereinabove, it is neither discernible from the record nor claimed by the Ld. DR before us that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank account were thereafter, utilized/invested by him or not available with him to source the cash deposits in SBNs during the year under consideration. No material has been placed before us to dislodge the availability of cash in hand in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs (supra) with the assessee, out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.78.80 lacs (supra) made from his bank account during the pre-demonetisation period. We, thus, are unable to concur with the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of Rs.62 lacs can still be held to have been sourced from the aforesaid amount. We, thus, finding no basis for drawing of any adverse inferences for the aforesaid reasons, i.e. difference in the cash in hand disclosed by the assessee in his written submission dated 24.12.2019 as against that disclosed in his return of income for the year under consideration, reject the same. 22. Apropos the observation of the A.O that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18, i.e. on 30.03.2018 for the reason that he was of the view that his case would not be scrutinized, we are unable to understand as to why such delayed filing of return of income would have any bearing on the assessee's explanation as regards the source of the subject cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs made by him in SBNs in his bank accounts, which are claimed to have been sourced from the cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra) made by him during pre-demonetisation period, i.e. in September, 2016. 23. Apropos the observation of the A.O that as the total business receipt of the assessee amounted to Rs. 86.01 lacs (approx.) and the expenses amounted to Rs.77.26 lacs (approx.), therefore, his claim that the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
