SANGEETA JAIN,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), GWALIOR

PDF · subscribers

ITA 308/AGR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sourced from the sale of goods which had already been offered to tax. Adding these amounts again would constitute impermissible double addition, making the impugned addition unsustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 1 Crore in cash during the demonetization period, claiming it was from cash sales of bullion. The Assessing Officer rejected this, noting the assessee previously made cash purchases of gold jewellery and then suddenly started showing cash sales of bullion.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization, claimed from sales of goods already offered to tax, can be added again to income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ms. Sangeeta Jain Income-tax Officer, बनाम/ Agarwal Complex, Gast Ka Tazia Ward 1(1), Gwalior. Vs. Lashkar, Gwalior (MP) �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. DHCPS-2599-G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Ashok Vijaywargiya, CA – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Agra [CIT(A)] on 27-06-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21-12- 2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of cash deposit of Rs.1 Crores during demonetization period. The assessee is stated to have made cash sales of bullion which has been sourced to make the impugned deposits. However, Ld. AO rejected the same on the ground that the assessee made cash purchase of gold jewellery till 01-11- 2016 and thereafter, suddenly, started to show cash sale of gold bullion. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

From assessee’s computation of income as kept in the paper-book, it could be seen that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Sangeeta Ornaments which is duly registered with VAT authorities. The books of the said concern are duly audited u/s 44AB and the assessee has reflected net profit of Rs.5.19 Lacs. Similar business has been carried out by the assessee in preceding year as well as in succeeding year. The assessee has maintained quantitative details of trading stock. Apparently, the trade has been carried out in cash and sales proceeds have been deposited in the bank accounts. All these documents were duly placed by the assessee before lower authorities. No defect has been pointed out by Ld. AO in the books of accounts and the books have not been rejected. The cash deposits have been sourced from sale of goods which have already been offered to tax. Adding the same again would amount to double addition which is impermissible. On these facts, in our considered opinion, the impugned addition is not sustainable in law. We order so.

The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →