9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1311 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - assessee has deposited huge cash in the bank account during the demonetization period - HELD THAT - It is clear that the assessee is unable to adduce any records to substantiate the source of cash deposit. Considering the conduct of the assessee, AO estimated business income of 8% against normal deposits which was reduced to 5% by Ld. CIT(A). This estimation, in our considered opinion, is quite reasonable and the same, therefore, would not require any interference on our part. Artificial distinction created in deposits made during demonetization period is not correct. The transactions have happened throughout the year and the nature of transaction is similar. Therefore, similar estimation could be made against demonetization deposit - AO is directed to adopt similar estimation of 5% against these deposits.
Issues:
Assessment based on cash deposits during demonetization period, estimation of business income, substantiation of sources of cash deposits. Analysis: The appeal was against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2017-18 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had not filed returns for previous years and deposited significant cash during demonetization. The Assessing Officer assessed unexplained cash deposits and estimated business income. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of cash deposited during demonetization. The assessee argued that major transactions were through banking channels and requested deletion of the addition. However, the CIT(A) reduced the estimated business income to 5% from 8%. The Tribunal found the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits. The AO's initial 8% estimation was reduced to 5% by the CIT(A), which the Tribunal deemed reasonable. The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the same 5% estimation to demonetization deposits. The Tribunal noted the similarity in nature of transactions throughout the year, rejecting the artificial distinction for demonetization deposits. The appeal was partly allowed, with the order pronounced in November 2024 at Chennai.
|
