9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, to protect his business, the assessee has accepted SBNs from customers and deposited into bank account. To this extent, we find that the explanation offered by the assessee for accepting SBNs during window period cannot be doubted. But, fact remains that although, the assessee claims to have filed necessary evidences, including relevant sales details when compared to previous Financial Year, but no such evidence has been rightly apprised by the Ld.CIT(A) while deleting the additions made towards cash deposits during demonetization period. As both the AO and the assessee could not justify their case with relevant reasons, we are of the considered view that only possible way out to settle the issue is to estimate income from cash deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. We find that appeal filed by Revenue is barred by limitation, for which, necessary petition for condonation of delay explaining reasons for delay, has been filed, for which, the ld.Counsel for the assessee did not raise any objection. 4. Having heard both sides and considered petition filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by Revenue for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay, and hence, delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 5. The brief facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was perishable items. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by following the decision of ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO, reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bangalore-Trib.), deleted the additions made by the AO by holding that the explanation of the assessee that source for cash deposits is out of sale of milk is acceptable, because, the AO has not brought out any fact that the sales were out of ordinary as compared to the sales of preceding year or even month to month sales for the same Financial Year. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld.DR, Mr. AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the additions made by the AO, and their orders should be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that the assessee being a dealer in milk, has accepted SBNs during demonetization period between 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and deposited into his bank account. The assessee has explained source for cash deposits out of sales. The AO never disputed the fact that the assessee has filed necessary evidences to prove his claim of source for cash deposits, including relevant evidences for sales made during the period, but rejected arguments of the assessee and made additions only on the basis of Circular iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
