9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 10 - AT - Income TaxAddition being the cash deposits made during the demonetization period - AR failed to produce the books of accounts before the Ld. Revenue Authorities or before us with respect to sales made during the demonetization period - HELD THAT - From the trading account submitted by the assessee we find that there is no opening stock to the assessee for effecting the sales during November-2016. The assessee claimed to have purchased Gold Bullion from various parties as detailed to effect the sales made during the demonetization period. However, the assessee failed to produce the sales invoice copies supporting the sales effected by the assessee. It is imperative to note here the assessee is not a retail trader to claim that the sales have been made through cash. As observed from the way that the sales have taken place from November-2016 onwards that the assessee has attempted to record his unaccounted cash in the form sale of bullion. It is seen from the bank book submitted in the paper book page 20 that the assessee does not have a sufficient bank balance to make the purchase of bullion. The assessee deposited cash and then made purchase of bullion which is contradicting the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits are made out of cash sales. In view of the above findings, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and therefore no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against addition of cash deposits during demonetization period. Analysis: 1. The appellant, an individual engaged in the jewellery business, filed a return admitting a total income for the AY 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetization. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the appellant failed to comply, leading to an addition of Rs. 73 lakhs under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer (AO). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, stating the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and did not produce sufficient details to support her claims. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, approached the Tribunal for redressal. 3. The appellant raised various grounds of appeal, challenging the addition of Rs. 73 lakhs and arguing that the cash deposits were sourced from legitimate sales. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) did not consider detailed submissions and case laws supporting her position. 4. During the Tribunal hearing, the Authorized Representative (AR) argued that the appellant resumed business after a hiatus and provided documents like VAT returns and purchase details to substantiate the transactions. The AR cited relevant case laws to support the appellant's case. 5. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the appellant's claims, asserting that the sales during demonetization were not genuine due to a lack of sales activity in the preceding months. The DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities to support this stance. 6. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and submissions, noting the appellant's failure to produce sales records during demonetization despite claiming the deposits arose from bullion sales disclosed in VAT returns. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the appellant's trading account and lack of evidence supporting cash sales. 7. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's attempt to record unaccounted cash as bullion sales was evident from the insufficient bank balance for purchases. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's explanation for cash deposits was inconsistent with the evidence presented, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 8. The Tribunal held that the Revenue Authorities' decision was justified, as the appellant failed to substantiate the source of cash deposits adequately. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, ultimately dismissing the appellant's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 73 lakhs as cash deposits during demonetization, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
