HOTEL FAKIRCHAND DHABA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 126/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 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 deposit was from the sales of the bar and restaurant business. Considering the nature of the business and the relatively small amount, the Tribunal held that the addition was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a hotel owner, deposited Rs. 1.50 lakh in cash, which was demonetised currency, into their bank account. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated this as unexplained income, disbelieving the assessee's claim that it was from sales proceeds.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 1.50 lakh, being demonetised currency, could be treated as unexplained income when claimed as sales proceeds from a bar and restaurant business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 10/03/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,51,000/- as unexplained Income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the fact that the cash deposit of Rs.1,51,000/- of demonitised currency was out of the sale proceeds and bank balance of Rs.2,54,344.52 as on 08.11.2016.

Hotel Fakirchand Dhaba ITA no.126/Nag./2023

3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running business of Bar and Restaurant. He has deposited ` 1.50 lakh cash in the bank account. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has not been able to substantiate cash deposit, however, it is submitted that cash deposits are from sales while running the business of Bar and Restaurant. The Assessing Officer, however, has denied the claim of expenditure made by the assessee.

4.

When the matter was carried before the learned first appellate authority, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the order so passed by the Assessing Officer.

5.

I have heard the arguments of the learned Departmental Representative, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that the assessee has specifically mentioned that cash deposits are sales from running the business of Bar and Restaurant wherein generally the customers pay cash in lieu of the consumption of food, liquor, etc. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the amount so received by the assessee on sale from running the business of bar and restaurants and being a meagre amount of ` 1.50 lakh, the same cannot be doubted. According to my opinion, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer while confirming the addition. Thus, I set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

Hotel Fakirchand Dhaba ITA no.126/Nag./2023

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/08/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →