9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied retrospectively. 3. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act may kindly be quashed and/or addition made by Assessing Officer may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and retired employee of Gujarat State Roadways Transport Corporation (GSRTC), filed his return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 24.07.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 97,140/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reasons that the assessee made 'large value cash deposits during demonetisation period as compared to return of income'. During assessment the assessing officer noted that assessee made cash deposits between the period of 9th November 2016 till 31st December 2016 aggregating of Rs.16.60 lakhs in three bank accounts of assessee with all Bank of Baroda, out of which one account is joint account. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate such huge cash deposits vide notice dated 03.07.2019 and again on 22.08.2019. The assessing officer recorded that in response to sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see in deleting the addition of Rs.11.60 lakh and remaining addition of Rs.5.00 lakh was upheld. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee held that Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that assessee has not provided complete explanation of his deposits as the source of deposits were not satisfactorily explained. The ld CIT(A) recorded that assessee claimed the source of Rs. 10.00 lakhs as withdrawal from loan account. Before disallowance the assessing officer has not made any inquiry from the bank if the loan amount was withdrawn in cash or it was used elsewhere and the nature and purpose of loan. However, the ld CIT(A) not accepted the explanation of the assessee that cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the bank account was out of past savings as there was cash withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- only. The ld CIT(A) held that assessing officer made addition as no evidence was furnished about agriculture income and past savings. The ld CIT(A) further noted that the assessee has not shown agriculture income in his return of income. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the ld CIT(A) held that the addition of Rs. 16.60 lakh is result of misappropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive effect. Therefore, the assessee is cannot claim to be taxed at the lower rate of tax. 11. I have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. As recorded above the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 16.60 lakhs by taking view that despite giving opportunity the assessee failed to substantiate the deposit in bank three account. The ld CIT(A) granted substantial relief of Rs. 11.60 lakhs by taking view that before making addition the assessing officer has not made any inquiry from the bank if the loan amount was withdrawn in cash or it was used elsewhere and the nature and purpose of loan. I find that ld CIT(A) not accepted the explanation of the assessee that cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the bank account was out of past savings as there was cash withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- only. Remaining additions were upheld by ld CIT(A) by taking view that assessing officer made addition as no evidence was furnished about agriculture income and past savings. The ld CIT(A) further held that the assessee has not shown agriculture income in his return of income and upheld that addition to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the additional income the second amendment was not available under the Income Tax Act. The said amendment took place with the following manner: "(1) Where the total income of an respondent assessee, - (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b)determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax, calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the respondent assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance [or set off of any loss] shall be allowed to the respondent assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the respondent assessee that the same was out of its normal business income and therefore the same is taxable under the head of business income. That when income is taxable as business income of the respondent assessee. In that case, the assessing officer was not justified in adding the same by invoking the provision of section 69B of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the addition as made by invoking the provision of section 69B of the Act was not justified. That when the excess amount of stock was taxed as business income of the respondent assessee on account of closing stock valuation, in that case there was no justification for invoking of the provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 2.4] The respondent assessee company carrying manufacturing and trading business of Jewellery from last several years. During the course of Search and Survey Proceedings respondent assessee company had offered an amount of Rs. 10,14,95,122/-and Rs. 1,20,02,793/- on account of discrepancies in Stock. In addition to that the Ld. A.O. also added Rs. 14,07,74,248/- on account of excess valuation of closing stock in value terms only. 2.5.1] That while filing the return the respondent assessee company incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r also failed to bring on records any other source of income of the assessee apart from the one that is shown in return of income. The assessee in support has also relied on the following decision:- * Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Bajargan Traders [Appeal No 258/2017 dt 12-09-2017]; * Hon'ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs DCIT as reported in 141 TTJ 001; * Hon'ble Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Lovish Singhal & Others vs ITO [Appeal No 143/ Jodh/ 2018]; * Hon'ble Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs Ramnarayan Borla [Appeal No 482/ JP/ 2015 dt 30-09-2016]; * Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath Vs CIT as reported in 35 ITR 416; * Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Considering the submission made and decisions referred, it is undisputed that the assessee is having only source of income from Trading and Manufacturing of jewellery. The additional income was offered on account of difference in the stock as per books of accounts and as actually found during the course of search. The differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
