Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who deleted additions made by the AO. The AO had added Rs. 79,81,000/- as unexplained cash deposits and disallowed Rs. 6,48,20,559/- for cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). The assessee, engaged in trading FMCG goods, had deposited a significant amount of cash during the demonetization period.
Held
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 79,81,000/- as unexplained cash deposits, holding that the assessee had demonstrated the sources and provided supporting documents. The CIT(A) also deleted the disallowance of Rs. 6,48,20,559/- under Section 40A(3), finding that the cash deposited into the bank was not an expenditure and that the AO had not properly considered the evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash deposits and the disallowance of expenses for alleged violation of Section 40A(3).
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 115BBE, 40A(3), 142(1), 145(3), 144, 44AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2024
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/10/2024.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ ½ ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:-10/10/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- ITO, NCRB Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 54/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत