9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business of dealer in pulses, food grains and manufacturer of besan. It filed its Return of Income on 2.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.17,09,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') to the assessee to furnish certain information. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed from the Bank account of the assessee maintained with the ICICI Bank that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.2,10,80,000 during the demonetization period. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the source for the cash deposits. It was explained that the source of the same are cash sales made during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36 August 2015 31,42,464 Aug., 2016 58,52,523 86 Sept., 2015 41,97,344 Sept., 2016 57,24,110 36 Oct., 2015 19,53,192 Oct., 2016 56,15,706 188 Nov., 2015 47,12,257 Nov., 2016 113,67,967 141 Dec., 2015 68,25,610 Dec.,2016 87,08,625 28 Total 2,45,41,608 Total 4,23,34,326 72 He further noted that the assessee has made cash sales to unidentifiable persons and failed to prove the genuineness of the sales. The assessee could not explain the source of huge cash deposit during the demonetization period from 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. He, therefore, made addition of Rs.1,77,92,718 to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act being the difference in sales between periods from July - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,77,92,718 u/s. 68 without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish a reasonable explanation for the abnormal increase in sales during the period July to December, 2016. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the sources for the cash deposits in the bank account. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary." 7. The learned Departmental Representative strongly challenged the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the assessment order, he drew the attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is not justified in deleting the addition. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the cash deposited during the demonetization period in specified notes is only Rs.17 lakhs out of the total deposit of Rs.2,10,80,000. The amount of Rs.17 lakhs is again within the cash balance available on the demonetization date. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was regularly filing VAT returns and there is no defect in the details of purchases and sales bills. Further there is no provision in the Act to obtain identity of a person such as name, address, PAN num ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 notes were deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period, the assessee was duty bound to give the names of persons to whom he has sold such goods and who in turn has given such large number of Rs.2000 notes that were deposited in the bank account. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that out of total deposit of Rs.2,10,80,000 during the period from 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 only an amount of Rs.17,00,000 has been deposited in specified notes and the remaining deposits were made in other than specified notes. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that when the VAT returns were filed depicting such high turnover and the purchase and closing stocks are not disputed by the Assessing Officer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked the assessee to substantiate the huge cash deposits during the demonetization period by giving PAN numbers of so called purchasers, ;the assessee has not filed such details and the learned CIT (Appeals) without verifying the pay in slips along with the bank statements was carried away by the submissions made by the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of CIT (Appeals) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after considering the nature of huge cash deposit made in large number of Rs.2000 currency notes in the bank totalling to Rs.1,62,30,000/-. Needless to say the CIT (Appeals) shall give due opportunity of hearing to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
