The Tax PublishersITA No 135/Chd/2021
2022 TaxPub(DT) 4126 (Chd-Trib) : (2022) 196 ITD 0662 : (2022) 097 ITR (Trib) 0389INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69A
Books of account were not rejected and AO accepted the sales as well as purchases and also the expenses claimed by assessee and only found fault with the quantum of cash deposits during demonetization period. Thus, apparently, impugned addition was made without any foundation and AO acted on mere surmises and conjectures without duly appreciating the undisputed fact that he himself accepted the books of account as well as the book results.
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 69A - Cash deposits during demonetization period pleaded to be made out of sales -
AO required assessee to explain cash deposits made during the period from 9-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 into bank account of assessee's proprietorship concern Syna Creations. Assessee explained deposits to be made out of sale during demonetization period. AO rejected assessee's explanation and thus made addition under section 69A. Held: Assessee's books of account were not rejected and AO accepted the sales as well as purchases and also the expenses claimed by assessee and only found fault with the quantum of cash deposits during demonetization period. Thus, apparently, impugned addition was made without any foundation and AO acted on mere surmises and conjectures without duly appreciating the undisputed fact that he himself accepted the books of account as well as the book results. Also, on the same set of facts, AO accepted cash deposit of Rs.17 lakhs in another proprietorship concern of assessee namely, Wool World but proceeded to doubt the cash deposit in case of proprietorship concern Syna Creations without any cogent reason. Therefore, also, on the same set of facts, AO cash deposit of Rs. 17 lakhs in another proprietorship concern of assessee, namely, Wool World but proceeded to doubt the cash deposit in case of proprietorship concern Syna Creations without any cogent reason. Therefore, addition was not sustainable.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2017-18
IN THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH
N.K. SAINI, VP & SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.
Tripta Rani v. Asstt. CIT
ITA No. 135/Chd/2021
13 June, 2022
Assessee by : Sudhir Sehgal, Adv.
Revenue by : Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Sudhanshu Srivastava, J.M.
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the Order, dated 30-4-2021 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana (in short the learned Commissioner (Appeals)), for the assessment year 2017-18.
2.0 The brief facts of the case are that this case pertains to M/s Rajan group of cases where search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter called the Act) was conducted on 1-11-2017 and various incriminating documents were found and seized from various business and residential premises of the group. Subsequently, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued and in response thereto the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.10,30,070 which was the same income as had been reflected in the original return of income filed earlier on 21-9-2017. The assessee declared income from salary, business and other sources.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|