Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted additions made by the AO on account of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and from sundry creditors. The assessee also filed a Cross Objection supporting the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided an affidavit and furnished books of accounts. The CIT(A) verified the books and found that deposits were out of sale proceeds and from debtors, appearing to be in the regular course of business.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions made on account of cash deposits and creditors, and whether the revenue could dislodge the findings of fact made by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
ITA No.274/CTK/2025, CO No.07/CTK/2025
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Nishanth Rao B, Sr.DR नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 16/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The revenue has filed the instant appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.03.2025, for the assessment year 2017-2018. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection supporting to the order passed by the ld.CIT(A).
It was submitted by the ld Sr. DR that in the course of assessment two additions have been made by the ld.AO representing the cash deposited in the assessee’s bank account maintained with State Bank of CO No.07/CTK/2025 India at Kendrapara and sundry creditors as recorded in the books of the assessee. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition without considering the fact that it is for the assessee to prove the transactions in respect of the cash deposited in the bank account. It was further submitted that the creditors have not been shown to be genuine. It was the prayer that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the AO be restored.
In reply, ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that in para 8.2, the ld. CIT(A) has categorically recorded a finding that the assessee has filed an affidavit stating that books of accounts were physically furnished before the AO. In para 8.3, specifically mentioned that the AO was requested for his comments on claims made by the assessee but the AO has not given any comments nor filed any remand report. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) verified the books and tallied the same with the cash book and has found that some amount deposited in the bank account were out of sale proceeds of the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) in para 9.5 has mentioned that the receipt from cash sales during demonetization and receipts from debtors appears to be during regular course of business and the book results shown by the assessee appear to be in order. Ld.CIT(A) after verification of the books has deleted the addition. The revenue admittedly has not been able to dislodge any of the findings of fact as brought out by the ld.CIT(A) in his order. This being so, we have no reason to interfere with CO No.07/CTK/2025 the order of the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is upheld.
As we have already upheld the order of the ld.CIT(A), the cross objection of the assessee which is supportive to the order of the ld.CIT(A), has become infructuous and the same stands dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 16/07/2025.