SRI GOURI PARAMESWARI COOPERATIVE THRIFT SOCIETY LIMITED,YELLAMANCHILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO, stating that the assessee did not furnish sufficient evidences.

Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is a co-operative society and regularly collect cash from its members through its agents and deposit the same in its bank account. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the details of daily collection made through its agents placed at page nos.70 to 77 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee had filed the same before the Ld. AO containing the details of daily collection of cash through agents and the date-wise deposit of the collection into its bank account. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to daily collections of cash through agents placed at page nos.78 to 163 of the paper book and submitted that these documents could not be filed before the Ld. AO but were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). These documents contained the details of name of the agent, the date of collection, the amount of collection, member from which collection has been made and the receipt number. Inspite of all the details filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions stating that the assessee did not furnish sufficient evidences. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) neither discussed about the evidentiary value of these documents nor identified any deficiency in the documents in his order before dismissing the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that, under the similar circumstances for A.Y. 2018-19, the Ld. AO had accepted the explanation of the assessee and did not make any addition in respect of cash deposit. Accordingly, the Ld. AR argued that the revenue cannot take biometrically opposite stand for different year without a material change in facts. Finally, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without properly appreciating the documents filed. As some documents could not be filed before the Ld. AO, therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to set aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO for proper verification of the documents.

Per contra, the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”) supported the orders of revenue authority and submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity and the assessee failed to establish genuineness of the cash deposit with concrete and verifiable evidence.

We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. There is no dispute about the facts that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.2,52,79,048/- in its bank accounts during the year under consideration. The assessee claims that the cash has been collected from its members through its agents. We have gone through the documents placed at page nos.78 to 163 of the paper book and found that the documents contained the name of the agent, the name of the member from whom the contribution has been collected, the amount collected and the date of collection. Further, we found that the Ld. CIT(A) has not addressed or discussed the evidentiary value of these documents in his order. There is no finding by the revenue authority on the authenticity or completeness of the documents placed at page nos.78 to 163 of the paper book. Therefore, we are of the view that a fresh verification is required in this case.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.