ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. MOHAMAD ISRAIL COLD STORAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, ARA

Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Circle-1, Patna…………...………………...…….………....Appellant vs. Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd............................…..…..... Respondent 33KH, Chik Toli, Bazar Samiti, Ara Bihar – 802301. [PAN: AAGCM3392N] Appearances by: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Nishant Maitin, CA, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 09, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : January 17, 2025 आदेश / ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

“6. Perusal of submission of the assessee the details of cash deposit made during F.Y. 2016-17 as well as during demonetization period along with data available with this office is prepared such details are as under: Sl. Account No. Bank Cash deposit Cash deposit during No. Name during F.Y. 2016- demonetization period i.e. 17 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 1 0376271000002 Canara Rs.4,74,000/- Rs 24,000/- Bank 2 0376214000018 Canara Rs 4,24,000/- Rs 24,000/- Bank 3 0376214000004 Canara Rs 97,89,000/- Rs 8,74,000/- Bank 4 60376101073375 Canara Rs 14,90,000/- Rs 4,50,000/- Bank 5 0376886000001 Canara Rs 50,00,000/- Rs 50,00,000/- Bank 6 0376271000003 Canara Rs 58,85,000/- Rs 50,24,000/- Bank Total Rs.2,30,62,000/- Rs 1,13,96,000/- On perusal of cash book, it seems the assessee company manipulated its cash book, as evident from the fact that daily closing balance as per cashbook since 01.04.2016 till 01.11.2019 has been between 12-14 lakh on an average. But suddenly, just before the demonetization i.e. 02.11.2016 closing balance stated to increase substantially and 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd interestingly no deposit was made to the bank till 08.11.2016. The receipt between 02.11.2016 and 08.11.2016 has been shown as 79,42,675/- and cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 was Rs.82,30,422/-. The receipt between the said period is highly inconsistent when compared to cash receipt during the entire year. Further, the assessee has not produced any other documents such as payment receipt invoice, party wise rent receipt detail and month wise receipt and expense details so that such a high closing balance can be justified. Clearly, the closing balance in cash book has been inflated to give it a look of a real one. Despite repeated notices, the assessee has not submitted any other document/papers to justify its claim regarding deposit of such an amount during the demonetization period.

“7.4 During the assessment proceedings, the books of account in particular the audit report along with bank statements, cash book and other documents were submitted to the A.O. However the A.O has not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of account. The appellant has shown the amount of disputed cash as trading receipts/repayment of advance which is recorded in the cash book and is not disputed by the A.O. Hence without rejecting the books of account the A.O has made the addition of the cash deposits which have been disclosed as receipts in the books. Hence there is merit in the contention of the appellant that the addition of the monies received cannot be done without rejecting the books namely the P&L account and the balance sheet. The exception to this would be of course where it is found that the money received is not recorded in the books and is from other sources. However this is not the case here and the A.O has not brought on record any finding in this regard. The appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional Patna High Court in the case of Laxmi Rice Mills vs CIT where it has been held that in the absence of any finding that the books of account of the assessee were not genuine, the source of income is well 3 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd disclosed and it cannot amount to any secreted profits within the meaning of the law. 7.5 In view of the above, the addition of Rs 1,13,96,000/- u/s 69A of the Act is deleted and the Grounds of Appeal are Allowed.”

4. Dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue has come in appeal before us. The contention of the ld. DR is that the assessee did not furnish the requisite or supporting documents as sought by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceeding and the ld. CIT(A) wrongly allowed the appeal of the assessee merely on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account, which is proper.

5. On the other hand, the ld. AR strongly objected to the above contention of the ld. DR. He stated that the assessee had submitted various documents such as audit report, balance sheet, profit & loss a/c, bank details in order to justify its claim before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer did not consider the documents properly and did not find any discrepancies in the documents and even has not rejected the books of account. The contention of the ld. AR is that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account and had not found any discrepancy therein and the cash deposits were duly recorded/disclosed in the books of account as trade receipt/repayment of advance. He, therefore, stated that the action of the Assessing Officer treating the cash deposits as unexplained money, is not proper. In this respect, the ld. AR referred the decision of the Jurisdictional Patna High Court in the case of Laxmi Rice Mills vs CIT reported in 97 ITR 258 (Pat). He further stated the ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and the same may be upheld.

6. We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee has submitted evidences Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd such as audited books of account including profit & loss a/c, cash book etc. during the assessment proceedings in order to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer. We note that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account and had not found any discrepancy in the documents submitted by the assessee. The cash deposits which were made during the demonetization period were duly recorded in books of account and properly disclosed as trade receipts by the assessee. We note that the amount deposited in bank account has already taxed and by adding the same amount u/s 69A of the Act, it will tantamount to double taxation, which is contrary to the law. We also find that without rejecting the books of account, the Assessing Officer’s action treating the cash deposits as unexplained money, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. To buttress our findings, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Patna High Court in the case of Laxmi Rice Mills vs CIT (supra), wherein, it has been held that ‘in the absence of any finding that the books of account of the assessee were not genuine, the source of income is well disclosed and it cannot amount to any secreted profits within the meaning of the law’. In the light of the above and respectfully following the judicial precedents, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Kolkata, the 17th January, 2025.