Kamakshiben Mayashankar Vyas Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act made without proper examination of the books of account and relevant financial records unjustified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
Facts- The assessee is engaged in the business of petroleum products dealership under the name and style of Bapa Sitaram Petroleum, operating as a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), a public sector undertaking since 2006.
AO observed, on the basis of AIMS module of ITBA Application, that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 33,58,500/- in bank during the window period of demonetisation. AO observed that the assessee has not filed the return of income. Therefore, a notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee requiring her to furnish the return of income. Thereafter notices u/s.142(1) were issued on various dates including notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act. but the assessee failed to comply with the notices.
Due to the assessee’s failure to furnish any explanation or details about the cash deposits, the AO invoked Section 144 of the Act to make a best judgment assessment based on the available material. AO treated the cash deposits and credit entries amounting to Rs.2,64,72,058/- in the assessee’s bank account as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 272B of the Income Tax Act for holding two PANs, as possession of multiple PANs without proper justification or cancellation of the duplicate was seen as a violation of the law.
