9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer found that the assessee in his Account with Bank of Baroda deposited a sum of Rs. 10,75,000/- during demonetization period and issued show cause notice to explain the above source of cash deposit. 2.1. The assessee replied the source of cash deposit in Bank of Baroda is withdrawal from four other banks namely Corporation Bank, State Bank of India and two other Bank of Baroda Accounts. The above cash deposits is duly reflected in the Return of Income filed in ITR-2 at Page No. 4 Serial No. 14. Further the assessee was not having any business income but rental income and other sources income only, therefore he has not filed the Profit and Loss and Balance Sheet along with Return of Income. However filed the same before the Assessing Officer along with cash book, wherein cash on hand as on 01-04-2016 as opening balance is Rs. 10,75,000/-, which was deposited in Bank of Baroda during demonetization period, therefore requested not to make any addition. However Assessing Officer rejected the Books of Accounts by stating on the verification of the Return of Income filed for the A.Y. 2016-17, assessee has shown Closing Cash on hand Zero and in the Cash Book of F.Y. 2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had so much of cash with him then what was the need of frequent withdrawals of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000. Nobody can prove the appellant's intentions other than himself but this is a clear instance where the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 can be applied where the Supreme Court has laid down Human Probability test as one of the important test in order to check genuineness of the transactions entered into the books of account of the assesses. The Apex court stated that, taxing authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality of the recitals made in those documents. Hence it is held that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 10,75,000 cash deposited in the bank account and the assessing officer is correct in treating this amount as unexplained cash under section 69A. As a result the appeal is dismissed." Three Year's Summery Cash Particulars Financial Year 2014/15 2015/16 01/04/2016 to 13/11/2016 Opening Balance 0 589884 137 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77352. 7 Lucknow ITAT Shri Sunny Kapoor V. ITO (2022) TaxCorp (A.T.) 96724. 8 Visakhapat nam ITAT DCIT V. Sri Sriram Manchukonda (2021) TaxCorp (A.T.) 91806. 9 Chandigarh ITAT Ski Himalayas Ropeways Pvt Ltd. V. ACIT (2022) 64 CCH 0101 ChdTrib. 10 Ahmedabad ITAT Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker V. ITO 45 CCH 0388: 44 ITR 0135 11 Gujarat HC CIT V. Shailesh Rasiklal Mehta 76 CCH 1088 ; 176 Taxmann 0270. 12 Jodhpur ITAT Krishna Agarwal V. ITO (202 1)63 CCH 0048; 215TTJ0245;213DTR (Trib) 0074. 13 Delhi ITAT Ravinder Tyagi V. ITO 2019TaxPub(DT)3538. 14 Delhi ITAT ACIT V. Baldevraj Charla & Ors. 27 CCH 09 15; 18 DTR 0413; 121 TTJ 0366. 15 Delhi ITAT Gordhan V. ITO ITANo. 811/Del/2015[ 2015 ] Prouncement Datel9/10/2015. 16 Delhi ITAT ITO V. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal [2014] ITANo. 5660/Del/2012. 17 Amritsar ITAT Smt. Sanjeet Kanwar V. Income-tax Officer [2022] 143 taxmann.com 266 ; 98 ITR(T) 12 18 Delhi High Court Jaya Aggarwal V. Income Tax Officer [2018] 92 taxmann.com 108; 254Taxman398 ; 302CTR241 . 19 Mumbai ITAT ITO V. Baburao K. Pisal 2015TaxPub(DT)3203; 066 (II) ITCL 0204 20 Gujarat High Court CIT V. Manoj Indravadan Chokshi [2014] 50 tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also invoked Section 115BBE of the Act and charged at 60% rate which is not applicable to the present case since the above cash deposits were clearly reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Though, Ld. Counsel has relied upon various case laws, we find relevant case laws which are cash deposits during demonetization period wherein Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. 6.1. In the case of Balwinder Kumar-Vs-ITO reported in (2023) 151 taxmann.com 338 (Amritsar-Trib.) wherein it was held as follows: "Where assessee deposited cash sales made during demonetization period in his bank account and admitted such sales as revenue receipts, since books of account of assessee clearly reflected sufficient stock to affect such sales and same were accepted by revenue authorities, there was no basis for making additions under section 69A, treating said deposits to be bogus." 6.2. In the case of DCIT-Vs- Sri Sriram Manchukonda reported in (2021) TaxCorp (A.T.) 91806 (ITAT-Visakhapatnam) wherein it was held as follows: "In the instant case, the assessee explained that the entire sum representing the deposits was duly accounted in the books of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
