Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

March 2025

Sec. 69A: Assessee deposited cash during demonetisation period of `10.75 lakhs which was recorded in his books of account and source of cash deposits was also maintained by assessee. However, Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained money under section 69A and taxed same under section 115BBE. ITAT held that Assessing Officer was not correct in invoking provisions of section 69A and charging tax under section 115BBE as assessee had recorded in his books of accounts and also explained source of such cash deposits.

By Jagdish T Punjabi, Chartered Accountant
Devendra Jain & Aditya Bhatt, Advocates
Reading Time 5 mins

83. Dipak Balubhai Patel (HUF) vs. ITO

[2024] 115ITR(T) 624 (Ahmedabad- Trib.)

ITA NO.:942(AHD) OF 2023

AY.: 2017-18

Dated: 22nd August, 2024

Sec. 69A: Assessee deposited cash during demonetisation period of `10.75 lakhs which was recorded in his books of account and source of cash deposits was also maintained by assessee. However, Assessing Officer made addition as unexplained money under section 69A and taxed same under section 115BBE. ITAT held that Assessing Officer was not correct in invoking provisions of section 69A and charging tax under section 115BBE as assessee had recorded in his books of accounts and also explained source of such cash deposits.

FACTS

The assessee was a HUF who derived income from House Property and Income from Other Sources. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the Assessing Officer found that assessee deposited a sum of ₹10,75,000/- during demonetisation period and issued show cause notice to explain the source of cash deposit.

The assessee explain

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

S. 127–Where the case of the assesse was transferred from one AO to another AO in a different city / locality / place, PCIT was under a statutory obligation to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Sec. 28: Where during search at residential premises of director of assessee-company, AO found that assessee had made out of books sales and added entire undisclosed sales to income of assessee, however, Commissioner (Appeals) restricted same to profit element embedded therein estimated at rate of 8 per cent of sales, since revenue had not given any basis to justify applying higher rate of net profit at 12.5 per cent instead of 8 per cent, addition restricted by Commissioner (Appeals) to 8 per cent of sales was to be upheld. Also, Commissioner (Appeals) failed to give benefit of income surrendered by assessee voluntarily against addition confirmed by him on account of unaccounted sales, Assessing Officer was to be directed to grant assessee benefit of income surrendered by assessee against addition confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals).