9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of Sridevi Ravi [ 2020 (12) TMI 665 - ITAT CHENNAI ] we find that the assessee has therefore explained the cash deposits and hence no addition can be made U/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 240/Viz/2022 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2023 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN , HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Sri GVN Hari , AR For the Respondent : Sri Sankar Pandi , Sr. AR ORDER PER S. BALAKRISHNAN , Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] vide DIN Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Rs. 39,74,601 Less: Cash deposited till the date of demonetization (till 08/11/2016 night) Rs. 13,11,000 Maximum cash available with the assessee from sales till date of demonetization Rs. 26,63,601 3. The Ld. AO then proceeded to arrive at the profit as per section 44AD of the Act based on the VAT turnover and computed the assessee s business income at Rs. 4,85,970/- as against Rs. 5,46,001/- declared by the assessee. The Ld. AO also observed that the assessee has deposited Rs. 64,50,000/- into the bank account during the demonetization period whereas it was observed by the Ld. AO that the cash balance was Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion period. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessing Officer is not justified in charging the above said addition to tax at higher rate by invoking section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 6. At the outset, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has made purchases to the extent of Rs. 1,06,95,659/- as has closing balance as on 31/3/2017 at Rs. 26,01,000/-. The Ld. AR further submitted that these purchases have been duly declared in the VAT returns which was not disputed by the Ld. AO. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the net cost of goods sold should be at Rs. 80,94,659/- [Rs. 1,06,95,659 Rs. 26,01,000]. The Ld. AR further submitted that if the estimated per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance available with the assessee at Rs 26,63,301/-, while recomputing the income at Rs. 4,85,968/- as against the income declared by the assessee in ITR at Rs. 5,46,001/-. The Ld AO also estimated cash expenditure at Rs. 6,63,301/- while considering the balance of Rs. 20 lakhs as cash available with the assessee for deposit in to the bank during demonetization. We also note that the Ld. AO claims that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs 64,50,000/-, whereas the assessee claims to have deposited only Rs 53,50,000/- as detailed below: Date Nature of deposit Amount (Rs.) 10/11/2016 Cash deposit 10,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofit is included to the above cost of goods sold the gross sales stood at Rs. 87,98,542/-. All these submissions were placed before the Revenue, but it was not considered. The contention of the AR is that the assessee has no other source of income and has also only one bank account, where cash sales is deposited, merits consideration. The AR also pleaded that the assessee has taken the benefit of presumptive tax provisions, whereas the profit margins in this seasonal business is higher than 8% also deserves consideration. We therefore find merit in the argument that the assessee s only source of income is from sale of crackers, and it can be concluded that the cash deposits in the assessee s bank account arise only out of cash sale. No mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as receipts from her civil contract business and estimate 8% net profit on total receipts as per the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed. 8. The assessee in its written submissions accepted the additional profit of Rs. 6,62,458/-. Relying on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sridevi Ravi vs ITO (60 CCH 0408 (Chen Trib) (supra), we find that the assessee has therefore explained the cash deposits and hence no addition can be made U/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 15th June, 2023. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
