HOT MILAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, BATHINDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), BATHINDA

ITA 153/ASR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9139 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KULDEEP SINGH SRA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 69; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hot Milan Construction Company, 421, Model Town, Bathinda [PAN: AAFFH 1883B] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Kuldeep Singh Sra, CA Respondent by: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in respect of the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The appellant filed his return of income declaring income of Rs. 19,87,560/-. ITA No. 153/Asr/2020 Hot Milan Construction Company v. ITO 2 That the AO has erred in law and on facts in disallowed exp. Under Labour exp. Head 12,500/- and under telephone, Travelling exp., Misc. exp. and depreciation head Rs. 25,200/- on estimate basis and addition of Rs.3,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money. That the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of exp. Rs.1,25,000/- under labour exp. head and but remaining disallowance exp. 25,200/- not allowed. That Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law and on wrong acts dismissed Appellant appeal against addition of Rs.3,10,000/- u/s 69 A of the Incoome Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money. 2. U/s 253(1) The appellant craves for leave to add, delete or modify and of the Grounds of appeal before or at any time of hearing. 3. U/s 253(1) Kindly deleted the addition of Rs.4,60,200/- or any other relief as deemed fit to be allowed.” 3. Ground No. 1C, the assessee has an objection to addition of Rs.3,10,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money being cash deposited during the period of demonization. 4. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee has made cash deposit on various dates from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 is as under: S.No. Date of cash deposit Name of Bank Amount Ld. AO accepted or not 1 10.11.2016 SBOP 500000 Accepted 2 17.11.2016 SBI 900000 Accepted 3 17.11.2016 OBC 990000 Accepted 4 18.11.2016 OBC 950000 Accepted 5 19.11.2016 Allahabad Bank 990000 Accepted ITA No. 153/Asr/2020 Hot Milan Construction Company v. ITO 3 6 30.11.2016 SBI 310000 Not Accepted He argued that the AO has accepted the cash deposits for five days but not accepted the last deposit of Rs.3,10,000/-, although it was also belonging to the demonetization period, as under: "2. The appellant doing business as a civil contractor and doing work at different places Bathinda, Rajpura, Chandigarh and Ratia. The accounts of appellant are duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. During the period of demonetization i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30 .1 2 .2 0 1 6 , the appellant deposited SBN currency with different bank accounts in said period. Detail is as under. S.No. Date of cash deposit Name of Bank Amount Ld. AO accepted or not 1 10.11.2016 SBOP 500000 Accepted 2 17.11.2016 SBI 900000 Accepted 3 17.11.2016 OBC 990000 Accepted 4 18.11.2016 OBC 950000 Accepted 5 19.11.2016 Allahabad Bank 990000 Accepted 6 30.11.2016 SBI 310000 Not Accepted The all entries are duly reflected in appellant’s cash book. The said cash book also submitted to the Ld. AO during the case proceeding. Ld. AO accepted the cash book receipts and payments and Ld. AO accept the cash book without any objection and defect. The sources of cash deposit are out of cash in hand available with the appellant which was withdrawn on different dates from the Bank accounts maintained by the appellant. The Ld. AO accepted first five entries dated 10.11.2016,17.11.2016, 18.11.2016 and 19.11.2016 but not accepted only one entry dated 30.11.2016 amounting Rs. 310000/- that the assessee had already visited the bank a number of times to deposit the SBN currency then why not deposited the said amount with bank on earlier visits. The reply of appellant submitted to Ld. AO reproduce as under: - ITA No. 153/Asr/2020 Hot Milan Construction Company v. ITO 4 “At the demonetization period our work contracts are running at diff. places and cash at every palace for day to day working. So it is not possible for us to deposit all SBN currency with bank within few days in single visit and at that time rush in banks are very high and there is not possible to deposit cash in short period. So major SBN currency amount deposited by us after few days after demonetization. Only Rs. 310000/- deposited in bank on 30.11.2016, which is also not very late because Govt, of India provide period for deposit of SBN currency up to 31.12. 2016.. The amount is duly accounted in books of accounts. Cash book from 01.04.2016 to 31.12.2016 already provided you for your verification. The said amount is not unexplained money u/s 69 A.” 5. The ld. counsel argued that the aforesaid cash deposit of SBN currency on different dates was made depending on availability of time and a very high rush in the banking business, there was no possibility to deposit the cash in a short period of one date so the currency amount has been deposited on different dates of the demonetization within the due date provide by Government of India for the deposit of SBN currency up to 31.12.2016. The said deposited amount has been duly accounted for in the books of account. He prayed that the said amount may be accepted as explained in view of demonetization scheme announced by the Government of India. The Ld. DR stand by the ld. CIT(A). 6. Heard. Admittedly the amount has been deposited during the demonetization period of SBN currency within due date, i.e. 30.12.2016 announced by the Government of India as per the demonetization scheme. Accordingly, the deposited amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- stand explained, thus the addition made is deleted. 7. In the last ground, the assessee has challenged the estimated addition towards expenses of Rs.25,200/- on adhoc basis out of telephone expenses, travelling expenses, other misc. expenses and motor cycle ITA No. 153/Asr/2020 Hot Milan Construction Company v. ITO 5 depreciation without bringing on record any documentary corroborative evidences to that effect. These estimate addition without any basis being made merely on presumption basis, ignoring the facts of the cases are requested to be deleted by the assessee. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid estimated addition made on account of adhoc disallowance of expenses without supporting corroborating evidences such as bill and vouchers cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the addition made of Rs.25,200/- is hereby deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order