MARAPPAGOUNDER CHANDRASEKARAN,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 4(1), CBE, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2931/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 March 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the turnover and income tax return, and bank receipts were considered as turnover. The Tribunal found the AO's contradiction in not accepting the sale consideration as genuine. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the deposits and deleted both additions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in textile trading, had cash deposits during demonetization and a difference between reported turnover and bank deposits. The AO made additions for these amounts, which were partially confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed the order.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits and differences in turnover, explained by the assessee as cash in hand, customer advances, and inter-bank transfers, are additions to income and if penalty proceedings are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 13.02.2025Pronounced: 14.03.2025

O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30.08.2024 and 24.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The registry has noted delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication.

& 32/Chny/2024. 3. Brief facts of the Appeal No.2931/Chny/2024 are as under: The assessee is engaged in the trading of textile items and has filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 admitting a net total income of Rs.4,38,270/- Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason of ‘cash deposit during the year’. The AO made an addition of Rs.4,47,07,222/- to the total income of the assessee on the following grounds:

(a) The difference between the reported turnover of Rs.4,47,07,222/- and the total of bank deposits Rs.5,65,51,427/- being Rs.1,18,44,205/- as sales and computed income @1.24% thereon at Rs.1,47,617/-; (b) Cash deposits of Rs.19,20,000/- made during demonetisation period as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee challenged the order of the AO before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.19,20,000/- as unexplained credits u/s 68of the Act. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us.

4. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted the difference in amount are due to deposit of cash in hand into the bank account, advances received from the customers and inter-bank fund transfers. The AO treated transaction on these account as turnover. The ld. counsel taken us through the chart showing consistency in business in preceding years and subsequent years.

5. Per contra, the ld. DR, vehemently supported the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. He further contended that despite having ample opportunities before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not furnish anything in support of the contentions made before the Tribunal.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →