9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made and recorded in the books and these facts were not disputed by the Revenue. When the demonetization was announced by the Government, there was heavy tension among the public for depositing the SBN. We cannot question as to why the deposits were not made in single day. From the point of Revenue, if the assessee has to make deposit on single day, why the AO has allowed the deposits made on 10.11.2016 12.11.2016 to the extent of ₹.53,40,000/- In fact, it was announced that the Reserve Bank of India would allow all the banks to receive old currency from 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and the assessee made deposit before the end date announced by the Government. Under these facts and circumstances and once the cash in hand was not disputed, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has considered all aspects and rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A). Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member AND Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT For the Respondent by : None ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL ME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the above bank accounts was to the extent of ₹.3,19,52,500/. Thus, notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 30.07.2019, 08.12.2019 15.12.2019 were issued calling for details relating to cash deposits during demonetisation and other details. In response to the notice, the assessee has submitted that out of opening cash balance as on 08.11.2016 of ₹.3,61,73,699/-, a sum of ₹.3,19,52,500/- was deposited in the above bank accounts. The Assessing Officer has not fully acceptable on account of the fact that on perusal of the cash book, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited cash into bank accounts on various dates starting from 10.11.2016 to 27.12.2016. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the deposit was not made in a single day. 4.2 The assessee in his reply had stated that the amount could not be deposited in one stretch as there was a certain limit per day especially when there was a rush. The Assessing Officer has noted that even in the fag end of December also, the assessee had deposited amounts as low as 6500. Even if the assessee had split the deposit to his convenience, such variations in the denominations of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC) and also the case of Sumathy Dayal vs CIT (SC) The Assessing Officer and has also mentioned few other cases seeking to justify the test of human probabilities as propounded by above mentioned Supreme Court cases. 7. We may at this juncture refer to speech of Honourable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi in announcing demonetisation as on 08.11 2016 As per the speech of Honourable Prime Minister it was announced that the Reserve Bank of India would allow all the banks to receive old currency from 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. It is clear that when Government of India has itself allowed 50 days for assessee to deposit SBN in the bank account it is not open to the Assessing Officer to cast doubt on the same merely because assessee did not rush to deposit all of his cash in hand in 1st few days of demonetisation. 8. Assessing Officer is right in holding that a normal person would rush to deposit any SBN lying with him in the bank account at 1st available opportunity. However very fact that assessee did not do so has to be interpreted in the balanced and reasonable manner and not in preconceived manner. If the assessee has adequate cash in hand balance available with him it was his own s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very fact that assessee has chose certain period within overall limit given by the Reserve Bank of India to deposit SBN cannot be held against him. 10(b) The month to month build-up of cash in hand as per the audited books of accounts and the cash book is as under: S.No. Date Opening Balance 1. 01.04.2016 21,15,286.00 2. 01.05.2016 36,89,154.36 3. 01.06.2016 34,10,434.36 4. 01.07.2016 33,85,495.43 5. 01.08.2016 38,34,781.13 6. 01.09.2016 1,56,98,258.59 7. 01.10.2016 2,85,52,482.07 8. 01.11.2016 3,28,37,891.67 9. 09.11.2016 3,62,33,699.11 10. 1 st October 2,8552,482.07 11. 8 th October 3,81,40,668.07 12. 12th October 4,27,19,993.07 13. 14th October 3,64,21,479.07 14. 20th October 3,53,86,198.47 15. 27th October 3,28,72,105.67 16. 02nd November 3,27,30,466.67 17. 08th November 3,46,98,963.22 10(c) It can be seen that cash in hand and balance available with the assessee has increased slowly but steadily from 01.04.20-16 till 08.11.2016. Assessee had maximum cash in hand of Rs.427.19 lakhs on 12.10.2016. These details were available with the Assessing Officer who has not investigated the availability of cash in the books of the assessee. AR of the assessee has also raised objection tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cash deposit of ₹.3,19,52,500/- made by the assessee into the bank accounts in the form of SBN, the Assessing Officer allowed the cash deposits of ₹.53,40,000/- made on 10.11.2016 12.11.2016 and the remaining deposit of SBN to the extent of ₹.2,66,12,500/- was treated as unexplained credit under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 8.1 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has produced all the details including audited books of accounts as was produced before the Assessing Officer. From the cash book of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that the cash in hand and balance available with the assessee has increased slowly but steadily from 01.04.2016 till 08.11.2016 and the assessee had maximum cash in hand of ₹.427.19 lakhs as on 12.10.2016 much before the announcement of demonetization of SBN on 08.11.2016. Moreover, the assessee has shown particular stream of income in his books of account and the inflow/receipts have been recorded in the books of account as income, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot treat it as unexplained credits. From the records, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that the assessee has shown the receipts as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
