INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-60(4), DELHI, DELHI vs. MOHAMMAD NAEEM, DELHI

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,00,000 made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash deposits. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, without recording the mandatory satisfaction under Rule 46A(1) and without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine OR rebut such evidence through a remand report, thereby violating statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 69A of the Act that the AO did not reject the books of accounts of the assessee and has not brought anything contrary on record to show that cash sales is not the source for the cash deposited during demonetization period ignoring the fact that the AO had made additions u/s 69A of the I.T. Act as the assessee could not explain the sources/ denomination- wise breakup of cash deposits, corresponding sales bills, OR identity/details of customers for entire cash deposit amounting to Rs. 84,00,000 during the assessment proceedings. 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the material fact that the assessee declared sales of Rs. 2,27,28,784 during F.Y. 2015-16, which increased abnormally to Rs. 10,78,33,495 during F.Y. 2016-17, and that such exceptionally high cash sales were neither declared in any of the preceding years nor in the succeeding year. Further, in A.Y. 2018-19, the assessee declared sales of only Rs. 2,78,13,356, which clearly demonstrates that the sharp and unexplained spike in sales during the year under consideration was abnormal and renders the assessees explanation untenable and not acceptable. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessees line of business, namely trading in live chicken and chicken meat in wholesale and retail, was not included in the list of entities permitted to accept Specified Bank Notes under the RBI Notification dated 08.11.2016 and the subsequent notifications issued in this regard.

Faced with this situation, we note that hon’ble Madras high court recent decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that section 115BBE applies on transactions carried out on or after 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 201819 onwards than in A.Y. 2017-18 involved herein. That being the case, we quote CBDT recent landmark Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024 prescribing minimum tax effect of Rs.60,00,000/- to conclude that the Revneue’s instant appeal deserves to be rejected for this precise reason alone. Ordered accordingly. 4.1 All other pleadings on merit stand rendered academic. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms subject to all just exceptions….” 6. We have noted that facts of the present case are identical to the judicial precedent discussed hereinabove and no distinguishment of facts was pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the Revenue. All the other pleadings of the Revenue on merit have become academic. Accordingly, in respectful compliance to the above decision and for the purposes of consistency, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed….” 7. We have noted that facts of the present case are identical to the judicial precedent discussed hereinabove and no distinguishment of facts was pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the Revenue. All the other pleadings of the Revenue on merit have become academic. Accordingly, in respectful compliance to the above decision and for the purposes of consistency, we dismiss the appeal of the Page 5 of 6 Revenue. The appellant Revenue would however be at liberty to consider requesting for recall of this order in the event it is noted that the appeal of the Revenue covered by any of the exceptions contained in CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024 (supra).