Case Law Details
Mohamed Thajudeen Abuthahir Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 115BBE not invocable in case of addition u/s. 69A towards unexplained money as assessee is having only one source of income from business and claims that source for cash deposits is out of sales of the year.
Facts- The appellant is engaged in the business of retail trading of readymade garments. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 38,40,000/- during demonetization period to his bank account.
AO on the basis of information submitted by the assessee, including statement of oath recorded from the assessee, opined that although the assessee claims to have deposited cash into bank account out of cash in hand, but such claim has not been substantiated because when the assessee is having sufficient cash balance, why he could not pay credits outstanding in the books of accounts. AO has analyzed the current assets and current liabilities of the assessee for two financial years and finally concluded that there is a sudden increase in sales for the impugned assessment year when compared to earlier financial year and thus, opined that the assessee has jacked up sales during demonetization period to cover up cash deposits to bank account and thus, rejected arguments of the assessee and made additions of Rs. 38,40,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act and taxed at 60% as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
CIT(A) sustained the addition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
