9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue are as under: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,69,10,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credits within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as the assessee not produced any cogent evidences to prove that the deposits made in the Bank accounts represent the business receipts. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of the unexplained cash deposit made by the Assessing officer u/s. 69A of the Act even though as per the provisions of the said section onus to explain the sources of the such cash deposited in the bank accounts are on the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of loan of Rs. 1,03,11,221/- should not be made to the total income for the subject year. The assessee filed reply dated 20.12.2019, which has not been discussed in the assessment order. The AO has, however, concluded that assessee failed to submit details of cash sales including purchase register, ledger of purchases etc. Therefore, source of cash deposit is not explained and hence, he added Rs. 1,69,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. As regards the addition of Rs. 1,03,11,221/- towards repayment of unsecured loan to various parties, the assessee had submitted that the source was out of credits received against sales. However, the AO added repayment of unsecured loans of Rs. 1,03,11,221/- to various parties by observing that source of the repa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation of parties, ITRs, bank statements and PAN details. Further, the CIT(A) observed that the appellant's explanation for the source of cash deposit being out of cash sale of two wheelers cannot be denied and the explanation of repayment of loan submitted before AO are acceptable. The CIT(A) concluded that the findings of the AO is incorrect, and the additions were made by AO on assumption basis. The AO has not gone through the submissions and details made by the AO during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) directed AO to delete the addition made of Rs. 1,69,10,000/- on account of cash deposits and Rs. 1,03,11,221/- on account of repayment of loan. Hence, the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on along with supporting evidences, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. He, therefore, requested that the order of CIT(A) may be upheld. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The ld. AR has filed the Statement of Facts and submissions and details filed before the AO and the CIT(A). In the submission before CIT(A), the appellant had also relied on various decisions. From the details filed by the ld. AR, it is seen that the assessee had filed reply dated 20.12.2019 to the AO giving his explanation regarding the source of cash deposits including opening cash in hand, cash sales, cash deposits, cash withdrawals and closing cash in hand. It is seen therefrom that assessee had opening cash in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
