Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The instant appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”] dt. 28/11/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Though the assessee has raised as many as seven grounds but the first grievance is that the assessee failed to file any additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A) as a result of which the facts could not be placed for necessary adjudication and, therefore, permission may be granted to file the same before the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. The second issue raised is against the addition of Rs. 1,13,58,820/- made on account of excess cash deposit into the bank account.
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suporna Manna 2 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is mismatch of details of cash deposited and cash sales filed before the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the details appearing in the audited financial statements. Prayer made that the matter be restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer so that, the assessee could file evidence in support of its contentions that there is no unexplained cash deposit. The ld. D/R, though not leaving his grounds, did not oppose to this request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and runs a petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited under the trade name of Suporna Filling Station, as a sole proprietor. Income of Rs. 8,15,110/- declared in the return of income e-filed on 04/10/2017 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act and the AO carried out the assessment proceedings. The year under consideration is financial year 2016-17 during which demonetisation scheme was announced. The ld. AO wanted to examine the cash deposits during the year and so he asked the assessee to deposit the month-wise cash sales and deposits. The ld. AO observed that, on one hand, the details of sales filed by the assessee shows a figure of Rs.14,34,63,819/- whereas in the audited accounts it reflects Rs.13,00,37,067/-. Further certain informations were called for but some of the details of cash sales and cash deposits were not found correct by the AO and the assessee again furnished the correct Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suporna Manna 3 details. However, the ld. AO was still not satisfied and he calculated the excess cash deposit of Rs.1,13,58,820/- observing as follows:- As discussed above, there was no credible information provided by the assessee which could be relied upon for ascertaining the total sales of the assessee. As per bank statement the total deposit is Rs. 10,78,97,230/- whereas the cash sales during the year was Rs.9,85,06,825/- as per both the original and revised submission. The said figure of cash sales has been shown in all the columns regarding cash sales or cash deposit. Hence, the said figure of cash sales is considered for the instant proceedings. Now, considering the same, the following data is drawn: SI. Description Amount a. Total Cash Deposit 10,78,97,230/- b. Cash Sales 9,85,06,825/- c. Cash Expenses 19,68,415/- d. Actual cash available to deposit (b-c) 9,65,38,410/- e. Excess Cash Deposit (a-d) 1,13,58,820/-