9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of account. We also find that such books have not been rejected by the AO nor any defect has been found out by him. When cash deposits were out of the cash in the bank as per the books of account, there is no question of treating the said deposits as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 - Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). The decisions relied upon by him also support his findings. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed. - Shri Pawan Singh, Jidicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA For the Revenue : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the Revenue emanates from the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, Ld.CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2017-18. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 75,57,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had shown cash receipts from parties in FY 2015-16 upto 08.11.2015 at Rs. 40,59,849/- but cash receipts from parties upto 08.11.2016 was Rs. 80,10,907/- in FY 2016-17. The assessee has shown cash receipts from customers in FY 2016-17 of Rs. 80,10,907/- which is 4.7% of the turnover, whereas the cash receipt for FY 2015-16 was Rs. 40,59,849/-, which was only 2.46% of the turnover. In reply, the assessee submitted that it is a general trend to maintain cash-in-hand and payment of interest on CC account cannot be questioned. In the previous year, the case of the assessee was subjected to scrutiny and no adverse inference was drawn on account of cash-in-hand by AO. The AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. He observed that cash sale up to 8.11.2016 was ₹ 25,56,319 whereas it was only ₹ 12,30,165 in the earlier year. The assessee has deposited various amounts in bank account totaling to ₹ 76,67,600 but he accepted the first cash deposit of ₹ 1,10,000 on 10.11.2016 and treated subsequent deposits of ₹ 75,57,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. He added the same to the total income of the assessee and taxed it @ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed argument of the assessee that the AO failed to establish that impugned cash deposit was not offered to tax. He accepted that it would amount to double taxation if separate addition is made in this regard. He further observed that the books of account have not been rejected and therefore, the cash deposited out of the cash in hand cannot be said to be from undisclosed sources. The learned CIT(A) further observed that in absence of any evidence that cash in hand has been utilised anywhere else, the deposit in bank cannot be adversely viewed. In view of the above facts and relying on various decisions of the tribunal and Hon ble Courts, he deleted addition of ₹ 75,57,500 made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned CIT-DR has strongly relied upon the order of AO. He argued that cash receipts from parties during the year was ₹ 80,10,907 (4.70% of turnover) which was substantially higher than ₹ 14,59,000 849 (2.46% of turnover) in the preceding year. Cash sales was also higher at ₹ 25,56,310 as against ₹ 12,30,165 in the preceding year. On th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was actually not having the cash of ₹ 76,67,600 as on 08.11.2016. Therefore, the excess deposit of ₹ 75,57,600 barring the initial deposit of ₹ 1,10,000 on 10.11.2016 was added u/s 68 of the Act. 6.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has duly considered all the issues in the assessment order as well as the explanations/ rebuttal of the assessee to the observations and findings of the AO. He has accepted the explanation of the assessee on all the issues. He has also examined the other aspects such as double taxation of cash deposit as well as profit on sales/receipts recorded in the regular books and applicability of provisions of section 68 of the Act to the impugned issue. We have carefully gone through the orders of lower authorities and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has duly considered the findings of the AO and their rebuttal by the assessee and passed a reasoned and speaking order covering all issues. He has also supported his findings with relevant decisions on the specific issue. We find that the AO has not disputed stock, cash received from customer, cash sales and cash withdrawal shown by the assessee in its regular books of account. He has also accepted other detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had received ₹ 28,09,444/-, ₹ 94,36,273 /- and ₹ 12,53,820 /- from cash sales, cash from customers and cash withdrawals respectively. Out of the above total cash of ₹ 1,48,73,439/-, it has incurred various expenses in cash including salary of ₹ 20,07,946/ and deposited ₹ 98,27,600/- in cash-in-bank account. The cash deposit of ₹ 76,67,500/- during demonetisation period is a part of the above cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. Thus, we find that cash realised from debtors and cash sales etc. have been duly recorded in the books of accounts. The impugned deposits have been made from cash balance available in the books of account. We also find that such books have not been rejected by the AO nor any defect has been found out by him. When cash deposits were out of the cash in the bank as per the books of account, there is no question of treating the said deposits as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of the Act. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A). The decisions relied upon by him also support his findings. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
