ANIL KUMAR THAKKAR,MAYURBHANJ vs. ITO, WARD-2, BARIPADA

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is in the wholesale business of consumer goods. It was the submission that the assessee had a turnover of Rs.4.08 crores. During the demonetisation period, the assessee had deposited Rs.58 lakhs in two accounts maintained with UCO Bank, Baripada Branch, Baripada. It was submitted that in one of the account the assessee had deposited Rs.56,07,000/-. The assessee has also deposited Rs.3 lakhs worth of specified bank notes being the Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes. The AO had examined the books of accounts and found everything to be in order and on examining the books of accounts, he had also examined the source for Rs.56 lakhs deposited in UCO Bank during the demonetisation period but because Rs.3 lakhs out of the said amount represented specified bank notes, the AO made addition. It was the submission that out of total turnover of more than Rs.4.08 crores the deposits during the demonetisation period was only Rs.56 lakhs and in that deposit also the specified bank notes was only to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs. The assessee is a dealer in consumer goods. The customer gives the money. It is that money that is deposited in the bank. It was the submission that the ld. AO has mentioned that evidence has not been produced to prove the genuineness of the transaction in respect of the amount of Rs.3 lakhs. When the amount of Rs.56 lakhs deposited in the bank account itself has been accepted and the amount of Rs.3 lakhs representing the SBN notes is part of Rs.56 lakhs, no further evidence could be produced. It was the prayer that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was liable to be deleted. It was the submission that the CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal without considering any of the submission of the assessee.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee as per the AO has deposited Rs.4.71 crores in its bank account and the turnover of the assessee was only Rs.4.08 crores. It was the submission that the excess amount deposited in the bank account itself should have been taxed and Rs.62 lakhs which is not taxed by the AO. Ld.Sr. DR also vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. At the outset, a perusal of the assessment order, clearly shows that in para 2 the AO has mentioned that the books of accounts and all details had been produced before him and the documents produced by the assessee has been cross-verified. In para 3, he discussed about the specified bank notes of Rs.3 lakhs. In the said paragraph, he states that the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of the transaction of cash deposit and has failed to prove the genuineness. Admittedly, the assessee is a dealer in consumer goods. The deposit of Rs.56 lakhs during the demonetisation period has also been examined by the AO. No defects in respect of the deposit of Rs.56 lakhs with the books of accounts have been found. Admittedly, many customers purchase consumer goods on cash. In fact, a perusal of para 2 of the order of the AO shows that in the said bank account the total credit is Rs.4.56 crores and out of this cash deposit is Rs.4.26 crores. Thus, it is clear that substantial portion of the business of the assessee is in cash. The period of demonetisation has also been examined by the AO and on cross-verification no defects have been found. Thus, it cannot be said that the assessee has deposited his unexplained money of Rs.3 lakhs during the demonetisation period representing SBN notes. In these circumstances, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) stands deleted.