ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S JAGMOHAN LAL SHIVRATAN LAL, PATNA

PDF

ITA 26/PAT/2021Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had produced certain documents and the Ld. CIT(A) without calling for any remand report had deleted the addition. It was prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed and the order of the Ld. AO deserves to be upheld. In reply the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, submitted that all details called for by the AO had been produced. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the certificate issued by the banks of the assessee at pages 937 to 945 which read1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the assessee's case for scrutiny due to large cash deposits during the demonetization period. The AO, after comparing cash sales with previous years, made an addition of Rs. 1,16,89,890/- due to higher sales during demonetization. The assessee produced documents before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition without a remand report.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not deposited any demonetized currency in the bank account, as certified by the banks. The returned income and turnover were accepted in principle. The CIT(A) had conducted a detailed investigation before granting relief. Therefore, the AO's order lacked merit.

Key Issues

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period, without considering the assessee's explanation and bank certificates, is sustainable.

Sections Cited

Section 269T, Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH” PATNA

Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna, 6th Floor, C.R. (Annexe) Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001 ...............…...…………….... Appellant vs. M/s Jagmohan Lal Shivratan Lal, Chowk, Patna City, Patna (Bihar) [PAN: AAEFJ2624D] .......…..…......................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Sh. Sanjay Goenka, CA Department represented by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 24.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 24.02.2025

ORDER PER BENCH

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna-3, [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)”] in appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-3/10150/2019-20 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Shri Sanjay Goenka, CA appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that assessee is engaged in the business of M/s Jagmohan Lal Shivratan Lal jewellery. The instant case was selected for scrutiny on account of large cash deposits made in the account during demonetization period. The AO had asked for various details and the assessee had admittedly not provided all the details. Consequently, the AO had compared the cash sales of the previous years in the impugned assessment year by taking an average of the monetary sales and has found that the sales during the demonetisation period were higher and consequently made an addition of Rs. 1,16,89,890/-. It was submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had produced certain documents and the Ld. CIT(A) without calling for any remand report had deleted the addition. It was prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be quashed and the order of the Ld. AO deserves to be upheld. In reply the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee, submitted that all details called for by the AO had been produced. The Ld. AR also drew our attention to the certificate issued by the banks of the assessee at pages 937 to 945 which reads as follows:

It was submitted that the assessee has not deposited any demonetized currency during demonetization period and the cash sales were regular sales of the assessee. It was submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case, reveals that the assessee has not deposited any demonetized currency in the bank account as has also been certified by the banks. On perusal of the order it is seen that the returned income of the assessee has been accepted. The turnover of the assessee is considered having been accepted as the book results are accepted in principle. Even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) has done a detailed investigation into the claim of the assessee before he has given relief to the assessee. This, being so we see no merit in the order of Ld. AO and thus