9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [in short Ld. CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer [in short Ld. AO] to the tune of Rs. 15,12,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (A.O. in short) erred in making addition of Rs. 15,12,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in making addition merely because the Appellant has accepted old currency notes, which acceptance was valid in law. 4. On the facts and in law, the Ld. A.O. failed to appreciate average monthly deposit by the Appellant during relevant period for A.Y.2017-18 was much more than the amount added 5. On the facts and in law, the Ld. A.O. has failed to appreciate that there is no abnorma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing before CIT(A), notices were sent on different e-mail ID. Some of the notices served through different e-mail i.e [email protected] were responded. Such e-mail ID was of accountant of M/s. Unilift Cargo Systems Pvt. Ltd. wherein, the assessee is also one of the directors. The said accountant has not informed about the further notice if any received by said accountant. The final order passed by CIT(A) was not served either physically or through e-mail provided on Form 35. The assessee came to know about the dismissal of appeal only when notice of recovery of outstanding demand was served upon the assessee on 06.02.2025, vide notice dated 03.02.2025. Copy of such notice is also filed on record. The assessee immediately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer (AO) issued show-cause notice to substantiate the cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessee submitted that he has deposited Rs. 27,51,000/-. The assessee was having cash in hand or Rs. 12,33,605/-. Rs. 6,05,000/- was cash in hand from withdrawal from Unique logistic including of earlier years. Rest of the cash of Rs. 11,07,000/- was collected from clients against the goods supplied before 8th November 2016. The AO not accepted such explanation of the assessee and allowed benefit of Rs. 2,00,000/- only. The AO thereby added Rs. 15,12,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68. The AO taxed such addition under section 115BBE. The ld. CIT(A) confirms the action of AO by referring certain decisions which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visa-vis turnover is not abnormal. The lower authorities have not rejected the books of account nor were books result disturbed. The ld AR of the assessee prayed for deleting the entire addition. 4. On the other hand, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay submits that once the assessee has received notice on different e-mail and made submission, thus, he has no occasion to object about service of final order through different e-mail. However, on confronting the screenshot of ITBA portal the ld. DR submit that bench may take appropriate view on delay condonation. On merit, the Ld. DR submits the assessee has already been allowed benefit of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs. The assessee f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find merit in the submission of ld. AR of the assessee that assessee was not aware about passing of impugned order by ld. CIT(A). Thus, considering the principle of law that when technical considerations are kept against the cause of substantial justice, cause of substantiation justice may be preferred. The assessee is not going to be benefited by filing appeal belatedly, rather, there is chance that appeal may not be admitted for hearing on merit. Thus, we further find that there is no melafide intention on the part of assessee in filing appeal belatedly. Hence, the delay in filing appeal of 408 days is condoned. Now, adverting to the merit of the case. 6. We find that AO during the assessment noted that the assessee made cash deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period i.e in January 2017 there is cash deposit in bank of Rs. 1.40 Crore. The assessee has also shown cash received from debtor in each and every month. Such figure of cash deposits regularly and cash received from debtor is not disputed by AO. Only objection of AO is that the assessee was not authorized to receive specified bank note from his debtor after demonization of high value currency note. We find that assessee in his reply before AO about Rs. 11,07,000/- clearly stated that such amount was collected against the goods supplied. It not the case of assessee that he has a received currency note of 500 or 1000 after declaring demonetization period. Thus, we do no find any justification for treating the cash deposits against the regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
