SRINIVASAPPA ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 11/11/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2024-25/1070241892(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.

The issue before us is whether the addition of ₹14,10,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable.

The AO noted certain cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, namely ₹7,40,000 in SBI and ₹6,70,000 in HDFC bank, and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed this addition holding that the assessee did not explain the source of cash deposits.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) filed a detailed paper book consisting of 163 pages. The assessee has shown that all the relevant details were already filed before the ld. CIT(A). These details included date-wise cash balance summaries and the cash book, wherein the cash deposits were duly accounted. The assessee is running a petrol pump business with a turnover exceeding ₹37 crores. The books of accounts are duly audited. The alleged deposits are reflected in such books and in the return of income.

It was further argued that the AO has not specified any particular bank account number where alleged cash was deposited. As such, there are substantial deposits in the bank accounts running into several crores. Hence, the figures noted by the AO also appear inconsistent. Hence, there is no proper application of mind by the AO.

On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) argued that since the assessee did not cooperate at earlier stages, the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has filed the return of income . declaring an income of ₹ 32,76,230 against the turnover of ₹ 37,21,21,916.00 only. It is also the admitted position that the books of accounts of the assessee are duly audited. According to the assessee, the cash deposits in the SBI bank account runs into several crores of rupees especially in the OD account bearing No. 770803. Besides, there were 2 more bank accounts in the SBI bearing Nos. 613385 and 402260 where the cash deposits were of few thousand rupees only in the year under dispute. Thus, it was contended by the assessee that the basis of alleging that there is a cash deposited in the SBI bank account amounting to ₹ 7,40,000 appears vague and without any basis 7.1 Similarly, the cash deposits in the HDFC bank account stands much more than the amount alleged by the AO. Accordingly, we are of the view that the basis of alleging unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act is devoid of any merit, particularly in the circumstances when the AO has not referred the cash deposit in any particular bank account number. As such, there was no bank account number mentioned by the AO except the name of the bank where cash was deposited. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the finding of the authorities below.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.