9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. Ten lakh u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited during demonetization period by ignoring that the cash deposits in the bank have been made out of cash balance available as per cash book which has neither been found to be incorrect nor rejected u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the demand of Rs. One lakh fifty thousand on account of surcharge @ 25% of tax and by charging education cess etc. amounting to Rupees Two lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred twenty nine as the charging of surcharge and education cess is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, the Ld. Assessee's Representative also produced cash flow statement to substantiate the contention of the Ld. Assessee's Representative. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently contended that though the A.O. has accepted the contention of the Assessee that the Assessee has withdrawn total Rs. 30,00,000/- which might have been used when demonetization announced, however, the Assessee failed to prove the reasonable and cogent explanation regarding the other withdrawals made on the dates preceding to such deposits. Therefore, by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having cash in hand Rs. 62,49,264/- as on 08/11/2016 after considering the cash expenses of Rs. 8,07,809/- from 01/04/2016 to 08/11/2016. Considering the fact that the Assessee has withdrawn the sufficient amount prior to the demonetization which is very well reflected in the statement of account and the same has not been disputed by the A.O. and not found the cash book as incorrect, thus in view of the above facts and circumstances, A.O. should not have made the addition. In our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error in upholding the addition made by the A.O. Accordingly, we allow the Grounds of appeal of the Assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the A.O. which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
