9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income of Rs. 8,07,740/-. The case was selected under limited scrutiny for the reason "Cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period". Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer on perusal of the bank statement of the assessee noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 21,40,780/- in his bank account during the demonetization period in old currency on 21.11.2016. The assessee on being questioned by the Assessing Officer to explain the source of income submitted that the cash deposited was out of cash in his hand. However, the Assessing Officer on perusal of the Income Tax Returns of the assessee for the past three years noticed that the column of cash in hand has been left blank. On perusal of the bank statement of the assessee, he noted that no withdrawal of cash was reflected in March, 2016. He, therefore, asked the assessee to submit the Cash Book, if any, to corroborate his claim. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for the past three years, it was noticed that column of the cash in hand has been left blank. On perusal of bank account statement no withdrawal of cash reflected in March, 2016. It was noticed that initially ITR for the A.Y 2015-16 has been filed declaring income of Rs. 3,20,970/-. This return has been revised and filed on 29.03.2017 ie after demonetization period. Interestingly, income was increased almost eight times in the revised return. For this reason appellant had to file schedule AL of the ITR. In that schedule it was expected from appellant to mention his cash in hand as on 31.03.2015 but somehow 'NIL' has been mentioned against this column. The appellant stated that he is an individual, a partner in a partnership firms and derives income from house property, income from partnership firms. income from Capital Gains, and income from other sources and deposited cash of Rs. 21,40,780/- in Sant Sopan Sahakari Bank Limited during the demonetization period. Entire addition has been made by the AO on account of disbelieving the cash in hand recorded in books of accounts u/s 69A. The deeming fiction u/s 69A can be invoked, where in any financial year assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the4 Assessing] Officer, satisfactory. the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.]" The appellant had deposited Cash in the bank account amounting to 21,40,780/- which is treated as unexplained money. Appellant was found to be the owner of the money appearing in bank accounts but has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such money found in its bank accounts. Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would show that in cases where the nature and source of acquisition of money, bullion, etc., owned by the appellant is not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then, the value of such investments and money or value of articles not recorded in the books of accounts may be deemed to be the income of such appellant. The provisions of section 69A of the Act t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rranted. 5. The CIT(A), in confirming the addition, did not consider that the provisions of Section 69A of the Act are not applicable to cash deposits recorded in the books of account, as these deposits are out of opening cash balance and cash withdrawals as explained by the appellant. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has produced Cash Book before the Assessing Officer wherein the deposit of Rs. 21,40,780/- on 21.11.2016 was reflected. Since the assessee has sufficient cash on 21.11.2016 i.e. during the demonetization period, therefore, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is not justified in sustaining the addition. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that when the source is explained from earlier cash withdrawals and when the Assessing Officer has not brought any adverse material, then the same cannot be treated as unexplained and no addition can be made u/s 69A of the Act: a. R.S. Diamonds India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2022) 98 ITR (T) 505 b. Jet Freight Logistics Ltd. vs. CIT (2023) 146 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 024 to the proposition that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are applicable to assessment year 2017-18. 14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee and the Revenue. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs. 21,40,780/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on the ground that the assessee made huge cash deposits during the demonetization period and could not explain the source of the same. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had sufficient cash on 21.11.2016, out of which he has deposited an amount of Rs. 21,40,780/- and therefore, once the source is explained, no addition u/s 69A of the Act can be made. It is also his submission that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act cannot be applied retrospectively for the transactions prior to 15.12.2016. 15. A perusal of the Cash Book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
