9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the source for the deposits made in SBN during demonetisation period and that the addition made by the revenue without disputing the business income of the assessee is not tenable. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the addition made under section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. Assessee appeal allowed. - SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JM AND MS PADMAVATHY S, AM For the Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya For the Respondent by : Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare ORDER Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. This appeal of the Assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 28.7.2022 for AY 2017-18. 2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of case and In law the Ld CIT(A) erred in adding of Rs.33,84,000/-as undisclosed income under section 69A and or under section 68 as mentioned in assessment order. 2. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest u / s 234B of Income Tax Act 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty u / s 271AAC of Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have shown cash balance at Rs 33,40,327/- as on 09/11/2016. The cash deposited by the assessee during the demonetisation is to the tune of Rs 39,34,000/-, This indicates that the cash withdrawal made prior to the demonetisation period and amount received on cash sales made has not been utilised for expenses, It is common sense that people withdraw money from the bank to meet expenses. Therefore, submission made by the assessee that the cash withdrawn from the bank and consideration on cash sales have not been utilised for expenses is something hard to believe. Therefore, the source of cash deposit of Rs. 39,34,000/- made by assessee has remained unexplained. It is apparent that the cash deposits made in the bank accounts during F.Y 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18, especially during demonetization period, are unexplained and from undisclosed sources, which has not been offered by the assessee for taxation purposes. Where the assessee was unable to prove that in his normal business or otherwise, he was possessed of so much cash, it was held that the assessee started under a cloud and must dispel that cloud to the reasonable satisfaction of the assessing authorities to hold that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 in support of the claim the source for deposit of Rs 39,34,000/- is from cash sales, withdrawals from bank and receipts from parties. With regard to the contention of the AO that the assessee has not accounted for any expenses the ld AR drew our attention to the above summary to submit that the surplus cash is being spent towards business expenses. Besides the above the assessee has also furnished details pertaining to parties of purchases and sales above Rs.50,000 along with bills. 8. The AO and the CIT(A) have not recorded any adverse finding with regard to the various details furnished by the assessee before them and that the AO himself has recorded the finding from the verification of cash book that the cash balance as on 09/11/2016 was Rs 33,40,327/-. The addition is made for the deposit of SBN during demonetization period on the ground that there is no reason for assessee to hold such huge cash and that the assessee ought to have incurred expenses in cash. The amount of sales which is not disputed is already offered to tax by the assessee by reflecting the same in the trading / P L Account which fact is not doubted by the lower authorities and that the AO/CIT(A) have accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Swarnasarita Jewellers 10 purely in the nature of the factual findings, do not require any interference and, in any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. 11. Following the above decisions, it is noted that similar view has been expressed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd [ITA No. 1035/Mum/2022] dated 29.05.2023. The relevant findings are noted to be as under:- 4. The CIT(A) has considered the details of sales, the stock register and the turnover is consistently maintained. The assessee has submitted the details of cash sales/receipts and party wise details of sales above Rs.2 lakhs and when a query was raised to Ld.AR on submissions of details were the cash sales are below Rs.2 Lakhs. The Ld.AR mentioned that the assessee has submitted details of sales below Rs2 lakhs and highlighted rule 114B of the I T Rules r.w.s139(a)(5)(c) of the Act and there was no KYC required. Further the Ld.AR demonstrated the sample Tax Invoice below Rs.2 lakhs in the demonetization period and the invoice contains, name and address etc. Further there is no significant increase in the cash sales out of total sales, wherea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
