Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 10,52,500/- on account of cash deposits in SBN notes during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, stating that the assessee failed to provide a logical explanation.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the cash deposits were out of regular business receipts and submitted audited books of account. The Tribunal opined that the matter should be restored to the AO for examination of the books of account.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash deposits during demonetization, confirmed by CIT(A), is sustainable without proper examination of books of accounts.
Sections Cited
69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH
Pachiyappan Selvan, The Income Tax Officer, 30/103, Santhai Pettai Road, Vs. Ward-1, Near Broker Office, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri-636701 Tamil Nadu. [PAN: EBGPS 8758J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Prasanna Urala, Advocate (Virtual) IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 17.05.2024 confirming the addition of cash deposits made in SBN notes of Rs.10,52,500/- u/s. 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).
The AO has made addition of cash deposits of SBN notes during demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in Vijaya Bank, Dharmapuri Bank account of Rs. 10,52,500/- u/s. 69A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to explain the cash deposited on various dates from 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 . The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition stating that the assessee has not given any logical explanation.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee before us has submitted that cash deposits were made out of the business receipt and are duly recorded in the books of accounts. The Ld. AR has submitted a copy of books of account in support of his contention.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. A.O has made the addition applying the human probability test that the assessee should have deposited the cash on single day rather than in piece meal on various dates. The Ld CIT (A) has also confirmed the addition stating that assessee has not given any logical explanation. Assessee before us has explained that the cash deposit was out of regular business receipt and submitted copy of audited books of account and ledger accounts explaining the source of cash deposit. We are of the opinion that the matter should be restored back to the file of A.O to examine the books of accounts and decide the case on merit. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th October, 2024.