SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 990/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 July 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: me. I observe that the assessee is an Shailendra Kumar Gupta5 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 assessee had successfully explained the source of the cash deposits as being from cash sale proceeds, which were duly accounted for in the books of account. The books of account were not rejected by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the garment business, deposited Rs. 12,36,000 in cash during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained income, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made during demonetization are unexplained income, despite the assessee providing the source from business sales accounted for in audited books.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shailendra Kumar Gupta,………………………Appellant Geetas Circle, 33/1B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 [PAN:ADBPG8016C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,……Respondent Circle-32(1), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances by: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing : July 18, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : July 22, 2024 O R D E R

The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 9th March, 2024 passed for assessment year 2017-18.

(A.Y. 2017-2018) Shailendra Kumar Gupta 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under:- (1)(a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, lower authorities erred in adding the cash deposits of Rs.12,36,000/- during the demonetization period by way of unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. (b) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities erred in not appreciating that the appellant had explained the source of cash deposits of Rs.12,36,000/- and the same formed part of the books of accounts and in that view of the matter, the impugned addition of Rs.12,36,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act by way of unexplained income deserves to be deleted in full. (2) For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned addition is uncalled for as ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in observing that the assessee has not furnished any details of source of deposits. He submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of garments and source of alleged cash deposits was from sale of goods. The assessee deposited cash during demonetization period in United Bank of India and information was duly given to the Income Tax Department through the declaration of return of income. The books of account have not been rejected and the sales made by the assessee has been accepted by the revenue authorities.

4.

On the other hand, ld. D.R. vehemently supported the order of lower authorities.

5.

I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an 2 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Shailendra Kumar Gupta individual and carries on the business of garments. Total turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration is of Rs.14.68 crores. Books of account are audited and tax audit report filed. During the year under consideration when demonetization scheme was announced, certain information was received by the ld. Assessing Officer about cash deposits in the Bank accounts. As per these details, Rs.1,59,86,000/- was deposited during demonetization period in the Bank accounts held by the assessee with HDFC Bank Ltd., Bank of India. The ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,16,50,000/-. So far as the remaining amount i.e. Rs.12,36,000/- is concerned, I note that the assessee had given the information about the old currency deposited in the Bank, but in the very same period, the assessee received new currency notes which were also deposited, but there being no need to file the details of such deposits, the assessee did not intimate the same in the details of currency notes.

6.

I also observe that the assessee mainly runs two Bank accounts, i.e. HDFC Bank with Overdraft facility and Bank of India. Information about both these accounts have been given in the income tax return. The third Bank account is held with United Bank of India. Though the information about the Bank account is not appearing in the income tax return, however, the assessee had furnished the cash transactions report to the Income Tax Department along with cash deposits with United Bank of India and the source of entire amount of cash sales proceeds. (A.Y. 2017-2018) Shailendra Kumar Gupta 7. On the overall examination of the facts, audited financial statements, summary of cash transactions filed by the assessee and other details furnished in the paper book including summary of month-wise total sale and cash sales and the fact that books of account have not been rejected by the ld. Assessing Officer, I am inclined to hold that the assessee has successfully explained the source of alleged cash deposits of Rs.12,36,000/- and the source of the same is from the cash sale proceeds, which are duly accounted in the books of account. Thus, the finding of ld. CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the addition of Rs.12,36,000/- is deleted.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/07/2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →