9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be very well said that the assessee claim was backed up by relevant evidences. Thus, the assessee has discharged the burden of proving the source of the cash/SBN deposited in the bank and the AO failed to rebut the same. The allegations/statistics relied upon by AO to take an adverse view is not backed up by relevant evidence/material and therefore the impugned action of authorities below cannot be countenanced. Since cash generated out of sales / collection from debtors has been recorded in the books of accounts, the provisions of section 69A. Objection on legal tender of Specified Bank Notes on or after 08.11.2016 - We find that as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016, which came into effect from 31.12.2016 appointed date for this purpose means 31.12.2016. As per Sec.5 of said Ordinance, from the appointed date, no person shall, knowingly or voluntarily, hold or transfer or receive any Specified Bank Notes. From the above what is clear is that up to the appointed date i.e.31.12.2016, there is no prohibition for dealing with Specified Bank Notes. Therefore, in our considered view, the objection of the Ld.CIT(A) and that of AO on this issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 115BBE of the Act and also Rs. 82,48,840/- cash deposited from 16/11/2016 to 09/12/2016, even though cash balance was explained but not deposited to bank account within reasonable time and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2019, holding as under: 3. The assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,33,03,000/- in SBNs during the demonetization period. Vide this office notice dated 09.11.2019, the assessee was given an opportunity to explain the nature and source of the deposits. It was also made clear in the said notice that in case of non-compliance or in case the explanation given is not satisfactory, the amounts deposited will be brought to tax as unexplained income of the assessee, It is seen that the cash balance of the assessee as on 08.11.2016 is Rs. 1,44,79,341/-, as against Rs. 2,33,03,000/- deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period. Thus, there is: a difference of Rs. 88,23,659/- (rounded off), for which the source is not explained. The assessee has not offered any explanation as to the difference or as to the nature and source of the cash deposits made during the demonetzation period In view of this, the source for Rs. 88,23,659/- is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. The assessee challenged the addition u/s. 69A of the Act for the following reasons: A) Rs. 88,23,659/- being the difference between cash deposits during demonetisation period of Rs. 2,33,03,000/- and cash balance on Rs. 1,44,79,341/- and B) Rs. 82,48,840/- being the difference between Rs. 1,70,72,500/- and Rs. 82,23,659/- ; Rs.1,70,72,500/- being the difference between cash deposits during demonetisation period of Rs. 2,33,03,000/- and amount deposited within a reasonable time of 15/11/2016 of Rs. 62,30,500/-. 5. The action of the AO is patently wrong, since the assessee had filed all the details electronically and they are examined. It is pertinent to note that NO finding with respect to any defect in the books of accounts given in the impugned order. It is important to note that the total turnover of the assessee in the immediate previous year was Rs. 13.77 Crores and in the impugned year it was Rs. 15.25 crores and the respective net profit rate are @ 0.76% 0.78%. When the accounts of the assessee were not found to be defective, the additions made is required to be deleted and relied on the following decisions: 134 Taxmann.com 256 (Del) or 441 ITR 550 189 ITD 608 (Vizag Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es other than the business. 17.0 Also stated that he had withdrawn the cash from the bank account is also source of SBNs deposited in the bank account during the demonetisation period. The cash withdrawn prior to demonetisation period was already taken as part of closing balance of cash in SBNs by the AO. Hence, there is no question of considering the same once again as source. If the assessee says that he had withdrawn the cash from the bank during the demonetisation period, the amount withdrawn cannot be in SBNs. Therefore, the explanation submitted for the difference of cash deposited in SBNs cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 is not satisfactory in terms of Sec.69A of the Act. 18.0 The appellant claims that he had maintained the books of accounts and all the sources of cash generated are reflected in the accounts. The appellant argues against the addition u/s 69A based on several case laws that when the books of accounts are maintained and entries of cash are recorded properly, no addition is warranted and if the same is made that is nothing but a double taxation. I completely disagree with the interpretation of the assessee on this point. The said case laws are applicable squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, such as bankers' refusal to accept the entire cash deposit at once or keeping the cash in various places by the assessee and the same cannot be brought to location bank or time required to spend on counting of cash is enormous or safely issues etc. Due to the above discussion, however strong the suspicion may regarding the pattern of cash deposits done by the assessee shall not lead to pure assumptions for making addition which is against the fact of having the cash in hand to the extent of Rs. 1,44,79,341/-. Therefore, the addition made u/s 69A of the Act on the cash deposits of SBNs made in bank account which was deposited after 16.11.2016 cannot be sustained. Subjected to the above facts on record, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 82,48,840/- u/s 69A. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, assailed that the ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, even though the assessee has filed all the relevant documents and details to prove its case. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee maintained proper books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eds and collection from sundry debtors / trade debtors. In response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had furnished cash book, sales register, purchase register, bank statements. The assessee has maintained proper books of accounts which are subjected to tax audit u/s. 44AB of the Act. The books of accounts of the assessee have been accepted by the lower authorities while framing the assessment and not rejected by pointing out any defects. 10. On perusal of the records and facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that when the sales has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same again would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible in law. The cash sales / collections made from debtors by the assessee have been credited in the books of accounts and the same form part of the assessee s cash book. On these facts, it could be very well said that the assessee claim was backed up by relevant evidences. Thus, the assessee has discharged the burden of proving the source of the cash/SBN deposited in the bank and the Assessing Officer failed to rebut the same. The allegations/statistics relied upon by Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
