9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government dated 08.11.2016 and accepted the Specified Bank Notes in lieu of sales made. For that, it is for the competent authority who may take action against the assessee as may be provided/applicable in relevant law. However, for the purpose of either section 68 or 69 of the Act, the said deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee. Our above view is fortified by the decision of the Coordinate Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri BhageerathaPattinaSahakara Sangha Niyamitha [ 2022 (2) TMI 1243 - ITAT BANGALORE ] Thus the addition made/confirmed by the lower authorities in the case of the assessee on this issue is not sustained and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. Appeal of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination. The assessee-society also furnished a written submission explaining the reasons and source of cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer after scrutiny of the record noted that the assessee-society had made cash sales of Rs. 91,87,680/- during the demonetization period for Specified Bank Notes which ceased to be legal tender w.e.f. 09.11.2016 vide Central Government Gazette Notification No.2652 dated 08.11.2016 issued under sub-section (2) of section 26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The Assessing Officer noted that since the aforesaid Specified Bank Notes issued by legal tender w.e.f. 08.11.2016, however, the assessee has accepted the said Specified Bank Notes in lieu of cash sales made by i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has deposited only the amount which was lying with its agents and no cash sales were made and therefore, the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has accepted demonetized currency in violation of any rule etc. was not correct. He has otherwise submitted that even otherwise the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable in this case. 6. The ld. DR however has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. In this case, the ld. counsel has explained that no cash sales were made during the demonetization period. That the amount in question was already collected by the agents of the society from the farmers-members which was deposited by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The only contention of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has violated the notification of the Central Government dated 08.11.2016 and accepted the Specified Bank Notes in lieu of sales made. For that, it is for the competent authority who may take action against the assessee as may be provided/applicable in relevant law. However, for the purpose of either section 68 or 69 of the Act, the said deposits cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee. Our above view is fortified by the decision of the Coordinate Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri BhageerathaPattinaSahakara Sangha Niyamitha vs. ITO in ITA No.646/Bang/2021 order dated 18.02.2022. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under: 15. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
