NALLASIVAM JAGADEESH KUMAR,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE, ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 93/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)4 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 found that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's business sale proceeds and were used for business stock. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 10,43,350 in cash during demonetization. The AO added Rs. 5,63,450 as unexplained cash deposits, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period were unexplained and liable for addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 13.08.2024Pronounced: 21.08.2024

Year: 2017-18 Nallasivam Jagadeeshkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 54, Thirumangalam Main Street, Vs. Ward-2(1), Avalpodunduri, Erode. Erode – 638 115. [PAN: AXFPJ 6103P] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N.C.Ravi Krishnan, Advocate IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M:

This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [NFAC] (hereinafter “CIT(A)”) dated 22.12.2023 confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.5,63,450 u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee during the period of demonetization. accounts during the demonetization period.

• The AO, after considering the explanation provided by the assessee, allowed a cash deposit of Rs. 4,79,900 as explained.

However, the remaining amount of Rs. 5,63,450 was treated as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee under Section 69A.

• The assessee contended that the cash deposits were from the sale proceeds of his business, which had a total turnover of Rs. 27,96,596. The AO did not accept this explanation, arguing that with a profit margin of only 8%, the assessee would not have sufficient surplus to deposit such a large amount in the bank.

• The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition.

3.

Before us, the assessee has reiterated the claim that the cash deposits were from the sale proceeds of his business. To substantiate this, the assessee has submitted a detailed breakdown of monthly turnover and bank statements. The bank statements demonstrate that the cash deposits were used to purchase stock, specifically cement, which was integral to the business operations.

3 -: 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and reviewed the evidence provided. The monthly turnover and bank statements submitted by the assessee convincingly illustrate that the cash deposits were indeed from the sale proceeds and were utilized for the purchase of business stock.

5.

In light of the substantial evidence presented by the assessee, we find that the cash deposits were properly explained. The addition of Rs. 5,63,450 made by the AO under Section 69A is, therefore, not warranted. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and the addition of Rs. 5,63,450 made under Section 69A is hereby deleted.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 21st August, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →