AMREASH AGRAWAL,SHIVPURI V. ITO SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

ITA 53/AGR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amreash Agrawal, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of Rs.1,52,93,670 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This addition was made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts, and tax was levied under Section 115BBE. The assessee contended that these deposits were from his business of jaggery and were recorded in his books. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the financial statements and bank records provided were sufficient to demonstrate that the deposits were not unexplained.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396262 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDER SHRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ SHAH

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE :SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.53/Agr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amreash Agrawal M/s. charu Trading Company Halwai Khana, Pragati Bazar, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh - 473551 Vs. ITO Shivpuri PAN : AIYPA2423R (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing 26.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2025 ORDER Per Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 16.01.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. Assessee by Shri Pankaj Shah, CA Department by Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR ITA No.53/Agr/2024 A.Y.2017-18 Amreash Agrawal vs. ITO 2 | P a g e 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (\"CIT(A)\") erred in understanding of facts of the case, the appellant prays that said addition be directed to be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 69A of the Act which is prayed to be deleted. 3. On the Facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the applicability of section 115BBE of the Act which is prayed to be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in his bank account source of which, remained unexplained, to the tune of Rs.1,52,93,670/-. The addition was made u/s.69A of the Act and tax levied on the same at the special rate prescribed u/s.115BBE of the Act. 4. The assessment order reveals that cash to the tune of Rs.2,55,86,240/- was found deposited in the following bank account of the assessee: Sl. No. Name of the bank and account number F.Y. Amount of cash deposits 1 State Bank of India, A/c No. 20062345489 2016-17 50,000/- 2 Central Bank of India, A/c No. 3950642457 2016-17 1,05,38,240/- 3 Central Bank of India, A/c No. 2016-17 1,49,98,000/- ITA No.53/Agr/2024 A.Y.2017-18 Amreash Agrawal vs. ITO 3 | P a g e 3186715335 Total 2,55,86,240/- 5. The assessee explained the same as relating to his business of jaggery. The AO, however, noted that the assessee has disclosed a turnover of only Rs.1,02,92,570/- . Accordingly attributing the cash deposited in the bank account to his sales of jaggery to this extent i.e. Rs.1.02 Crores, the balance of Rs.1.52 Crores was treated as from unexplained sources and added to the income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. Tax was levied on the same in terms of the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has challenged both the additions made u/s.69A of the Act as also the levy of the tax u/s.115BBE of the Act in the grounds raised before us. 6. The solitary contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee was that the Ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the addition was totally incorrect for the reason that the assessee had demonstrated to the Ld. CIT(A) that all the three bank accounts were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee pertaining to the business of jaggery conducted by him and, therefore, all the cash deposited therein were duly recorded in his books of accounts.That there was no case, therefore, of the source of cash deposit ITA No.53/Agr/2024 A.Y.2017-18 Amreash Agrawal vs. ITO 4 | P a g e to the tune of Rs.1.52 Crores being from unexplained sources. His contention was that Section 69A of the Act deems income, those assets, including money, found not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee offering no explanation of the nature and source of acquisition of the same . He drew our attention to the provisions of Section 69A of the Act in this regard as under: “69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.” 7. He contended that the necessary condition to be fulfilled for invoking Section 69A of the Act, therefore, was that: i. The assessee should be found to be owner of an asset not recorded in his books of accounts; ii. No explanation is offered by the assessee of the source of acquiring such asset. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that audited results of the assessee were there before both AO & CIT(A). The audited financial statement clearly reflected the impugned bank accounts of the assessee ITA No.53/Agr/2024 A.Y.2017-18 Amreash Agrawal vs. ITO 5 | P a g e wherein cash was found to be deposited by the AO, which was added to the income of the assessee. In this regard, he drew our attention to paper book page no.62 to 66, which was audited balance sheet of the assessee. Referring to page no.62, which was statement of assets and liabilities of the assessee’s business in the name of M/s. Charu Trading Company for the year ended 31.03.2017 pertaining to the assessment year impugned before us i.e. A.Y. 2017-18,he pointed out that both the Central Bank of India accounts, OD and mortgage loan was reflected therein as also the State Bank of India accounts of the assessee. He, thereafter, drew our attention to the bank statements of these three bank accounts for the impugned year at P.B 22-36 and pointed out that the closing balance reflected therein was reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee and it was these bank statements which showed cash deposited therein which was being picked up by the AO for making addition to the income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. He contended, therefore, that it was clear from the records before the Revenue authorities that the bank accounts noted by the AO to have cash deposited therein were duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee and, therefore, there was no case for invoking the provision u/s.69A of the Act. 9. The Ld. DR was unable to controvert the factual contention of the assessee. ITA No.53/Agr/2024 A.Y.2017-18 Amreash Agrawal vs. ITO 6 | P a g e 10. In the light of the above, we completely agreed with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Revenue authorities below had erred in invoking Section 69A of the Act of treating as income cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee, which was duly accounted for in the books of the assessee. The addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.1,52,93,670/-, therefore, we hold is not sustainable in law and direct deletion of the same. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Since, we have deleted the addition made u/s.69A of the Act, the ground raised by the assessee challenging invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act for levying tax at special rate is of no consequence. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: SKSinha Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra "