NILKANTHA SAHA,MORIGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-MORIGAON, MORIGAON

ITA 88/GTY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 February 2021AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 12,41,704/- was a double addition as it represented sales already accepted by the AO. The assessee's explanation that this amount was deposited by sundry debtors for pre-demonetization sales was found plausible and supported by evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited invalid currency notes of Rs. 23,50,500/- during the demonetization period. The AO accepted Rs. 11,08,796/- as genuine cash balance as of 08.11.2016 and added the remaining Rs. 12,41,704/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of cash credit under Section 68 is justified when the amount represents sales already accepted as part of business income, leading to double addition. Whether the AO can rely on rejected books of account for making additions under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH: GUWAHATI

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

Pronounced: 17.02.2021

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- Guwahati-1, dated 02.03.2020 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The sole ground of the assessee is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,41,704/- made by the AO U/S 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as unexplained cash credit.

3.

Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO is that the assessee has filed his return of income showing total income of Rs. 7,42,118/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the reasons for scrutiny selection was "cash deposited during the demonetization period". The AO notes that the assessee had deposited after demonetization the invalid

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →