How many judgments cite Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT?

69 judgments on BharatTax cite Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT (97 ITR 258), spanning 2021 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 69A, Section 143(2), Section 142(1).

Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT

97 ITR 258High Court1974#1641 most cited

What is Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee's books of account are accepted as genuine and reflect a cash balance sufficient to cover high denomination notes or other cash deposits, the source of such cash is deemed explained. In such cases, no addition can be made under Section 68 or Section 69A if the cash is duly recorded in the books and declared as income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT · Section 68 · Section 69A · unexplained cash · high denomination notes · genuine books of account · cash balance · source of funds · undisclosed income · addition · declared income · books of account accepted

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69A Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)addition under section 68 section 44ab addition u/s 68 rejection of books of account section 31 section 145(3)preponderance of probability section 44a double taxation section 115bbe section 115bb

Judgments citing Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT

Shri Deepak Soni, Bhyopal vs. The ITO 4 (3), Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhashri Deepak Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambalika Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Acyps8020J) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Kumar Soni, Ito-4(3), बनाम/ Prop. Ambey Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 18, Chowk Bazar, Bhopal (Pan: Avgps0484F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

…the books of account. Accordingly, I set aside the Fine Gujranwala Jewellers, order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 45 lakhs." 20. Further, in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon'ble Patna High court held as under: "It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the hi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Aura Jewels, Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 68

…he Assessing officer. If the entries in the books of accounts are genuine and the balance in cash is matching with the books, it can be said that the assessee has explained the nature and source of such deposit. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon'ble Patna High court held as under: . CO-9/Bang/2023 Page 14 of 25 "It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is suffic…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chauraha vs. Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Private Limited, Ara

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 198/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.198/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Circle-1, Patna…………...………………...…….………....Appellant Vs. Mohamad Israil Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd............................…..…..... Respondent 33Kh, Chik Toli, Bazar Samiti, Ara Bihar – 802301. [Pan: Aagcm3392N] Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 17, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,87,600/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For Examination Of Cash Deposits Made During The Period Of Demonetization. Accordingly, Notices U/S 142(1) & 143(2) Of The Act Were Issued & The Assessee Responded By Submitting His Itr, Computation Of Income, Audit Report, Bank Statements & Other Supporting Documents Through Itr Portal. Upon Reviewing The Submissions, The Assessing Officer Observed That The During The

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

…refore, stated that the action of the Assessing Officer treating the cash deposits as unexplained money, is not proper. In this respect, the ld. AR referred the decision of the Jurisdictional Patna High Court in the case of Laxmi Rice Mills vs CIT reported in 97 ITR 258 (Pat). He further stated the ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and the same may be upheld. 6. We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that the assessee has submitted evidences I.T.A. No.198/Pat/2024 Assessm…

Om Vinyls Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3549/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya - CIT DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…4 taxmann.com 584 (Mumbai - Trib vi. Balwinder Kumar vs. ITO [2023] 151 taxmann.com 338 (Amritsar Trib.) 6 Om Vinyls Private Ltd., AY 2017-18 vii. RS Diamond India vs. ACIT [2022] [145 taxmann.com 545] (Mumbai - Trib.) viii. Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (PAT.) (HC) 3.7. Ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment, by making the following additions: (a) Contribution to Employee's Provident Fund of Rs. 45,408/- u/s. 36(1)(va) on the ground it was paid after the prescribed due date. (b) Cash deposits in bank account during demonetization period of Rs 54,00,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs. Nathmal Rupchand Jain, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…v) DCIT vs. M.C. Hospital 142 taxmann.com 122 vi) DCIT vs. Roop Fashin 98 ITR 419 vii) Smt. Tripta Rani vs. ACIT 97 ITR 389 viii) J.M. Wire Industries vs. CIT 205 Taxman 134 ix) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) x) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT 97 ITR 258 xi) Daulat Ram Rawatmull vs. CIT 87 ITR 349 (SC) xii) PCIT vs. Hitesh Gandhi vide ITA No.18/2017, order dt 16.02.2017 20. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that the addition u/s 69A is unjustified where the cash deposit is treated as cash sales reflected in regular books of account as it amounts to double taxation: i) Nitin Kumar…

M/S. V.N. Exports, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 817/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

…kata 4 Uma Maheshwari 527/Chny/2022 Chennai 5 R S Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. 2017/Mum/2021 Mumbai 6 M C Hospital 197 LTD 706 Chennai 7 Smt. Charu Agrawal 140 taxmann.com 588 Chandigarh 8 Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana 76/Viz/2021 Visakhapatnam 9 Lakshmi Rice Mills 97 ITR 258 Patna 10 J.M. Wire Inds. 18 taxmann.com 297 Delhi 11 995/Ahd/2014 Shree Sanand Textiles Ahmedabad Industries Ltd. 12 Rajeshkumar Chhanalal Patel 2159/Ahd/2016 Ahmedabad 13 Vishal Export Overseas Ltd. 2471 of 2009 Gujarat 14 113/Ahd/2023 Abhishek Prakashchand Ahmedabad Chaajed 15 511/Ahd/2020 Ashapura Petrochem Ahmedabad Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 16 Zinz…

Jitendra Kumar Tahilramani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-2, Jaipur.

ITA 928/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Th. V.C.)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…my view, there is no question of treating the said deposits as unexplained cash deposit as opined by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are relevant to the issue under consideration. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were R.S. Diamonds India Private Limited 3 accepted by the revenue as genuine and cash balance shown therein was sufficient to cover high denomination notes held by the assessee, then the assessee was not required to prove source of receipt of said high denomination notes which…

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Jkj Jewellers (Hcm), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 143Section 68

…onsideration. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on a number of judicial pronouncements on the proposition that addition u/s 69A of the Act cannot be made i.e.: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT); DCIT Vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016. 10. After considering the facts as discussed above, we find the AO has failed to justify in applying section 69A to the case of the assessee when the assessee itself declared the cash sales in its return of income duly recorded in the audited books of accounts maintained by the as…

DCIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Manuvel Mezhukanal, New Delhi

ITA 1550/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Manuvel Mezhukanal, Central Circle-01, 209-10, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Ina Market, New Delhi. Pan: Ablpv5671Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.01.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10504/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle 53(1), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 68

…sessing officer. If the entries in the books of accounts are genuine and the balance in cash is matching with the books, it can be said that the assessee has explained the nature and source of such deposit. 14. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon’ble Patna High court held as under: “It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the hig…

DCIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nikita Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2593/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 68

…applicable to the facts of the present case. 4.2. We notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the following decisions in deciding this issue in favour of the assessee: a. ACIT vs. Hirapanna Jewellers (ITA No. 253/Viz/2020); b. Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT[1974] (97 ITR 258 (Pat.)]; 4 c. Kailash Jewellery House – Hon’ble Delhi High Court [ITA No. 613/2010]; 4.3. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the decision rendered by the Ld.CIT(A):- “5.1 I have gone through the submission of appellant and the Order of Learned Assessing Officer. The ground of appeal pertains to carrying out addition u/s 68 (i.e. unexp…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Mahendrakumar Laljibhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 194/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2017-18 The ACIT, Shri Mahendrakumar Circle-2(1)(1), Laljibhai Patel, Ahmedabad Vs 13, Amiganga Complex, Rohit Mill Circles Kokhra, Ahmedabad – 380026 PAN: ABR PP 5735 B (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 27-08-2024 Date of pronouncement : 06-11-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is f…

ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 27/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicialmember Acit, Circle 22(2), Vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 2366, Satya Chambers, Rajguru Road, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Aalcs8254L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar, Ca Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

…rapanna Jewellers vs. ACIT (2021) 128 taxmann.com 291 (Visakhapatnam – Trib.); (iii) Charu Aggarwal vs. DCIT (2022) 140 taxmann.com 58 (Chandigarh – Trib.); (iv) Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bombay HC); (v) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat.)(HC); (vi) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC); (vii) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All.)(HC); 14 Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC); (ix) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat.)(HC); (x) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). 12. With regard…

Nitin Vijay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

Ziva Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1) (Earlier 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2625/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss. Padmavathy S. () Ziva Jewellery Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Gems Industries, Plot No.A/30, 2Nd Income-Tax,Circle 3(3)(1) [Earlier Floor, Road No.3, Midc, Andheri East, 11(3)(2), Mumbai Mumabai-400 093 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacz2058C Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…1 Ziva Jewellery Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MISS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Ziva Jewellery Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Gems Industries, Plot No.A/30, 2nd Income-tax,Circle 3(3)(1) [Earlier Floor, Road No.3, MIDC, Andheri East, 11(3)(2), Mumbai Mumabai-400 093 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road PAN : AAACZ2058C Mumbai-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Department represented by Shri Swapnil Savant (JCIT) Date of hearing 09/09/20…

Mangat Ram, Panipat vs. ITO Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2564/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mangat Ram, Vs Ito, Vikas Bhatta Co., Bko Kiwana, Ward -1, Panipat, Haryana-132103. Panipat. Pan-Agipr2718L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Navjot Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.09.2024

Section 147Section 69A

…he Assessing officer. If the entries in the books of accounts are genuine and the balance in cash is matching with the books, it can be said that the assessee has explained the nature and source of such deposit. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon'ble Patna High Court held as under. "It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the hig…

Ram Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…n correspondence with cash sales and growth in sales compared to earlier two years showed similar trend, it could only be concluded that there was growth in assessee’s business and impugned addition was to be deleted. 1.14 In Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT [1947] 97 ITR 258 (Pat), the Patna High Court held that “it is a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the high denomination notes s…

Durga Fire Work, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(8), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.383/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Durga Fire Work Ito, C/O Sh. S.K. Gambhir, Adv., Vs. Ward-59(8), 429 3Rd Floor, Jagriti Enclave, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaafd3178Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 69A

…consideration. The Id. Counsel has also placed reliance on a number of judicial pronouncements on the proposition that addition u/s 69A of the Act cannot be made i.e. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT); DCIT Vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016. 10. After considering the facts as discussed above, we find the AO has failed to justify in applying section 69A to the case of the assessee when the assessee itself declared the cash sales in its return of income duly recorded in the audited books of accounts maintained by the as…

Rakesh Malhotra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3571/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…my view, there is no question of treating the said deposits as unexplained cash deposit as opined by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are relevant to the issue under consideration. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Patna), it has been held that, when books of account of the assessee were 3 R. S. Diamonds India Private Limited accepted by the revenue as genuine and cash balance shown therein was sufficient to cover high denomination notes held by the assessee, then the assessee was not required to prove source of receipt of said high denomination notes which…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

…ere not challenged by the Assessing Officer, then, the entries in the books of accounts, needs to be considered as genuine. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT reported in [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Patna). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the Assessing Officer is erred in making additions towards cash deposits u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, and thus, directed the Assessing Officer to delete addition made towards cash deposits u/s.68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the ld.CIT(A) are as under: 6.4 After going through the specific fi…

Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(7), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

…ssee in the books of accounts. It is because the sales receipt has already been shown in the books of accounts as income at the time of sale only. 5.6 Further he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Patna case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Patna), wherein it has held that, when books of account of the assessee were accepted by the revenue as genuine and cash balance shown therein was sufficient to cover high denomination notes held by the assessee, then the assessee was not required to prove source of receipt of said high denomination notes which were legal tender at that time. 5.…