Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI SONJOY SARMA
Assessee by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri PP Barman, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order passed by the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’) dated 19th March, 2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), which is arising out of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide order dated 30th December, 2019. 02. The assessee has raised following ground of appeal: -
1. The Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in fact andcircumstances of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,57,99,220/-made on account of cash deposited in to bank account of assesse considered as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act despite the fact that the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings had failed to substantive the source of cash deposit with documentary evidences.
The Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in fact andcircumstances on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,57,99,220/- on account of cash deposit in to bank account of assesse in mentioning the unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act instead of the unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Actas contains inthe Assessment Order. 3.
Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and successfully demonstrated the source of cash deposits which is from the sale proceeds from business carried out in the name of Maa Durga Enterprise a distributor of Bharti Airtel Limited. The ld. CIT (A) based on the documents filed before him, was satisfied with the source of cash deposit explained by the assessee and accordingly, granted the relief. Aggrieved Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal
The ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the concerning officer and ld. counsel for the assessee therefore relied on the finding of the ld. CIT (A).
“6. The sole issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is the cash deposits found to have been made by the appellant in his bank account. According to the appellant, he is the sole proprietor of M/s.Maa Durga Enterprise, which is carrying on the business as distributor of Bharti Airtel Limited and the cash deposits made during the relevant period in his bank accounts were out of sale proceeds received from the customers on sale of SIM cards. In support thereof the appellant had submitted before the AO copy of the Distribution Agreement entered into with Bharti Airtel Limited, Bank Statements, Sale Register, Balance Sheet, Final Accounts including Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and expenditure details with ledger copies. However, the AO held that the appellant failed to furnish the cash book and VAT returns as required and hence treated the entire cash deposit of Rs.1,64,77,880/- as unexplained u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved, appellant has filed the present appeal. 6.1. According to the appellant, the AO has failed to take cognizance of the details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings and had summarily rejected the evidences filed. The appellant submits that perusal of bank account statement would clearly show that immediately after the cash deposits, corresponding sums were transferred to Bharti Airtel Ltd which corroborates the contentions. The appellant further contends that in the subsequent year, i.e., AY.2018-19, similar cash deposits, of higher volumes were accepted as from out of cash sales. The appellant has furnished the copies of submissions made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings to support the contentions that all necessary details and evidences were already available before the AO which clearly substantiated the source of cash deposits as from out of the sale proceeds. The appellant further submits that Books of accounts are duly audited and as per RBI notification, acceptance of cash on sale of SIM cards was permitted during demonetization period. It is therefore, contended that addition of the impugned cash deposits as unexplained by the AO is totally arbitrary and unwarranted on the facts of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.