9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi [here in after referred as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- being cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetisation period without appreciating the fact that cash deposited in the bank account were out of sale proceeds of EVD [Electronic Voucher Distribution] made to local shop keepers, thus assessee prays for deletion of Rs.10,00,000/- in full. 3. Without prejudice to the contention raised above in the grounds of appeal no.2, that on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- being cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetisation period without considering the fact that the assessee is operating in retail sector of selling EVD [Electronic Voucher Distribution) on cash basis and cash transactions are happening in earlier years as well as for pre and post demonetisation period, accordingly assessee prays for deletion of Rs.10,00,000/- in full. 4. Without prejudice to the contention raised above in the grounds of appeal no.2&3, that on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Orissa HC)". 3. Facts, in brief, are that for A.Y. 2017-18 the assessee filed his return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 3,92,844/-. Thereafter the AO on the basis of information regarding cash deposit of Rs. 12,00,000/- in bank account the case was reopened to verify the source of cash deposit. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the "Act") at Rs. 12,92,840/- by adding Rs. 12,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved against this assessee preferred appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) who partly allowed the appeal. Thereby he gave benefit of the cash deposit in old currency. Still feeling aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee was having cash sales and the cash collected from the customers was deposited in the bank account and was transferred to the dealer of EVD. He submitted that the assessee is engaged in the purchase and sale of Electronic Voucher Distribution (EVD) for Tata Sky TV Setup Box Recharge. He contended that the authorities below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1,10,00,000/- 1,43,00,000/- % of amount collected and transferred 99% 85% 99% During the current financial year cash sales to local shop keepers was Rs.1,18,84,000/- which worked out 96% of the total sales of Rs. 1,23,71,925/- (PB.Pg.No.21]. For the immediately two preceding financial years 2015-16 and 2014-15, total sales of Rs.90,44,758/- [PB.Pg. No.24] and Rs.1,42,41,918/-[PB.Pg. No.27] respectively was cash sales. 3. Cash deposited during the demonetisation period: During the demonetisation period cash amounting Rs. 12,00,000/- was deposited in the bank account and the same was added by the AO u/s.69A and CIT(A) vide order dated 05/09/2023 allowed Rs. 2,00,000/- and confirmed addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- Cash deposited in the bank account in the current financial year 2016-17 during the demonetization period [Nov & Dec 16] and the pre and post demonetization period are as under: Particulars Amount Cash deposited during the demonetization period 12,00,000/- Cash deposited during the pre and post demonetization period 1,06,84,000/- Total cash deposited 1,18,84,000/- Cash deposited during the demonetization period out of the Total cash deposited[%] 10% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross objection of the assessee are dismissed." [PB.Pg.No.85 to 88]. Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO. [2022] 194 ITD 702 (Bang.Trib): In this case the Tribunal held as under: Where Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 on account of cash deposited by assessee in its two bank account post demonetization, since said cash deposit was towards assessee's sale proceeds which was already offered to tax by assessee and admitted by revenue as revenue receipt, impugned addition made under section 68, resulting in double taxation, were liable to be deleted. [PB.Pg.Nos. 89 to 91]. CIT Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. Tax Appeal No.2471 of 2009, dated 03/07/2012 [Guj.HC]: The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court whille confirming the finding of the Tribunal held as under: "Assessee has already offered sales realisation and such income is accepted by the Assessing Officer to be income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income", [PB.Pg.Nos. 92 to 96]. K.S.Kannan Kunhi Vs. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 757 (Kerala.HC): The question raised by the assessee in the case before us is not whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
