9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable. Decided in favour of assessee. Non payment of TDS - assessee has contended that actually it has paid the TDS vide Challan - AO disbelieved this version of the assessee on the ground that it failed to furnish copy of the Challan - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that once assessee has explained the BSR Code, details of payments, AO should have verified. Now the assessee has placed copy of the Challan whereby a sum stands deposited. Considering the above details, we delete this addition. Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) And Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26th January, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has pleaded four grounds of appeal at Serial No. 10 of Form 36. Out of these four grounds of appeal, Grounds No. 1 4 are general grounds, which do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sits by production of appropriate documentary evidence. In response to the said notice, the assessee only said via the e proceeding module that all the deposits were from sales turnover. The assessee did not mention as to whether the sales was effected before or after 08/11/2016. Because after 08/11/2016, when the legal tender of currency notes of denominations Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000/- was withdrawn, it is illogical that anybody will accept a piece of paper in return of goods sold. Also, the assessee could not furnish his books of accounts to show that the said amount was recorded in his books of account maintained for the FY 2016 -17 and also failed to substantiate how the amount accumulated in his hands. To explain the source of a deposit in bank accounts, the assessee had to furnish its books of accounts to prove whether actually the deposits were from sale proceeds of the business. Before claiming that the deposits were from sale proceeds, the assessee should have furnished the sale register to show the recording of the amount as sales, stock register to show the movement of stock, Purchase register to show that the stock that is claimed to have been sold was actually received fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that if figures of both the years are being compared during the period of 8th November to 31st December of earlier year as well as accounting year relevant to this A.Y. 2017-18, the deposit in terms of percentage is lesser by 11.76%. The ld. Assessing Officer has not analyzed the nature of the business of assessee, vis- -vis compulsion for accepting the cash. He thereafter put reliance upon the following decisions:- (i) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. -vs.- CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (All.), approved in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram - vs.- CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); (ii) Asstt. CIT -vs.- Dr. Anil Kumar Verma [IT Appeal No. 274 (Agra) of 2013 dated 04.09.2019; (iii) See Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. (P) Ltd. - vs.- DCIT [2020] 114 taxmann.com 492 (Mad.). 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the additions have been made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 69A by treating such deposits as unexplained money. He drew our attention towards section 69A and submitted that perusal of this section would reveal that it contemplates three conditions:- (a) assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery, etc.; (b) such money is not recorded in the books of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to examine the source of that money His only doubt is qua the source of Rs. 2,13,00,000/-, out of which he has made addition of Rs. 1,29,00,000/- roughly. In the assessee s line of business, cash is being generated regularly which depicts in the earlier year where assessee has deposited Rs. 3.17 crores during the period from 8th November to 31st December, 2015. This was not a demonetization period but no doubt was expressed by the revenue on this deposit. The total deposit in the year was Rs. 18.13 crores including the period of 8th November to 31st December, 2015. In the A.Y. 2017- 18, i.e. involved in the present appeal, total deposit in cash was of Rs. 16,00,33,090/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the majority of the cash deposits. 11. We have reproduced the assessment order but no specific reason is discernable from the finding of the ld. Assessing Officer for disbelieving cash deposits during demonetization period. To our mind, it is an arbitrarily exercise of powers at the end of the revenue. There is no logic or reasoning given for not accepting these cash deposits. The assessee was in such a line of business, where it has to sale pulses, wheat gram, flour and rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
