9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash deposit is also inline of subsequent years, beside addition is made without any iota of evidence/material against the assessee and in support of flimsy allegations made, therefore addition is against all the cannons of law. 4. Because, Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself with all the objections of AO, which have been met by the assessee with evidences still sustained the addition by invoking the theory of probability against the concrete evidences on record which are not found defective or rejected, thus addition is sustained merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 5. Because, without prejudice to above, Ld. CIT(A) inherently wrong in sustaining the addition being the same amounts to double taxation is as much as all the sources of deposit like sales etc. have been declared and taxed thus to add the deposit again is against the basic tanets of law." 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal submits that Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act being the cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period since the same is beyond the scope of provision itself, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition. Legal ground on section 69A and double taxation also rejected. Assessee version on merits, that: a) Additions u/s 69A cannot be made of an amount recorded in book of accounts for any source of income. b) After accepting the sales by accepting declared income on same, same cannot be added again as no source. c) Objection of Ld. AO are either incorrect on record or are flimsy without any foundation. Beside so called behind the back enquiry never confronted and in any case is opened only at the time of arrival/removal of goods and there is no full time employee. d) Assessee had filed given source of Rs. 14.40 lakh deposit beside agricultural income of Rs. 160280/- out of which source of 2.40 lakh deposit accepted, thus same source accepted for part deposit and rejected for balance. e) Raising doubt on sales/rent after accepting the same is against the basic tenets of law and not permissible. f) Neither there is any material against the assessee or in support of addition, more so when none of the evidences and sources placed found false with some material. 4. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Heard rival submissions, perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sub-section (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. (2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.]" It is clear that Sec. 69A of the Act is applied when the assessee is found to be owner of any money which is not recorded in the books of account. However, in the case of the assessee, it has maintained hooks of accounts duly audited in accordance with section 44AB of the Income Tax Act which was also furnished with the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee has demonstrated from the purchase books, sale books cash book supported with relevant invoices that source of cash deposited was out of the cash sales made during the A.Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar set of facts, considered the assessee's son's case (Ankit Dilip Jain) but the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has not considered the assessee's case. Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that the addition made by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has not filed any details before the Ld. AO and even before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and therefore there is no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and the same may be sustained. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed facts that the assessee has disclosed the investment in his books of account and also shown the same in the computation of income which was offered for taxation. Therefore, the Ld. AR's contention that the provisions of section 69A are not applicable in the present case of the assessee as the cash deposits during the demonetization period are duly recorded in the assessee's books of accounts holds good. I have also considered the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anoop Jain (supra) held that one of the essential conditions in section 69A of the Act is that the assessee should be the "owner of the money" and it should not be recorded in his books of account. This was a pre-condition to the next step of the assessee offering no explanation about the nature and source of the acquisition of such money. 7. We further observed that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sadhana Jain Vs. CIT(supra) held as under: - "The provisions of section 69A are explicit and come into play when in a particular assessment year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money bullion, jewellery and other article is not recorded in the books of account and the assessee is unable to give any explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuation articles." 8. It is also observed that the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PCIT Vs. M.C. Hospital (supra) held that it is a settled principle of law that entries recorded in the books of account cannot be brought to tax u/s 69A of the Act. 9. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
