DCIT (Central)-2, Indore V. M/s. Dabang Dunia Publication (P) Ltd., Indore

ITSSA 172/Ind/2019

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted an addition made by the assessing officer. The addition pertained to Rs. 90,58,950 which was treated as undisclosed money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The cash was seized from employees of M/s. Dabang Dunia Publication P. Ltd. who were attempting to deposit it in a bank post-demonetization. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition and in not applying the amended provisions of section 115BBE for the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the cash was part of the assessee's regular business activities and was recorded in the audited books of accounts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130484 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 69A; 13; 22

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 14 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS.SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M.BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT-Central-2 Indore बनाम/ Vs. M/s. Dabang Dunia Publication P. Ltd., 307, Shalimar Corporate Centre, RNT Marg, 8, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) PAN: AAECD 2588 H Assessee by Shri Satnam Singh Sheetal, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT–DR Date of Hearing 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 03.03.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 31.05.2019passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal[“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.12.2018 passed by learned DCIT, Central-2, Indore[“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year[“AY”] 2017-18, the revenue has filed this appeal on following grounds: Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 2 of 14 “(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 90,58,950/- made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of assessee with regard to chargeability of tax as per normal rates instead of amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 relevant to AY 2017-18 which are clearly attracted in the case of the assessee.” 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of printing/publication of newspapers. The revenue-authorities received an information from Sr. S.P., SIB Raipur, Chattisgarh to the effect that a cash of Rs. 90,58,950/- was found from Shri Abdul Sharif Khan and Shri Kapil Bhatnagar (employees of assessee) who were trying to deposit the same in Bank of India, Devendra Nagar, Pandri, Raipur branch. This incident happened on 17.11.2016, post-demonetization on 08.11.2016.Pursuant to such information, the revenue-authorities took action u/s 132A which culminated into framing of assessments u/s 153A/143(3) for AY 2011-12 to 2016-17 and u/s 143(3) for AY 2017-18. We are presently concerned with AY 2017-18. While completing assessment, the Ld. AO treated the cash found as undisclosed money; thereby made an addition of Rs. 90,58,950/- u/s 69A and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first-appeal and succeeded. Now, the revenue is in appeal assailing the order of first-appellate authority. 4. Ld. AO has discussed the entire issue in Para No. 9 to 10 / Page No. 3 to 26 of the assessment-order. The substantial findings of Ld. AO are briefly summed up thus: (i) Imputed cash was seized by police authorities from the possession of two employees when they were trying to deposit in Bank of India, Raipur branch. Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 3 of 14 (ii) Shri Kapil Bhatnagar, in his statement, stated that cash belonged to Raipur office of assessee and that some cash was supplied by a person named “Nicky” after 08.11.2016. (iii) Shri Abdul, in his statement, stated that the cash belonged to Raipur office of assessee. He too admitted that the cash was supplied by “Nicky” on different dates after 08.11.2016. He also supplied certain Excel Sheets and stated that some bogus entries have been made against outstanding/receivables in the books of assessee-company. He further stated that the actual circulation of newspaper is lesser than the quantum shown by assessee. (iv) The authorities also summoned Nicky (“Shri Santosh Kumar Jodhwani”) and recorded statements on 17.11.2016. He stated to have received currency notes in the old denomination of 500 and 1,000 on various dates/timings from different persons and passed those currency notes onto Shri Abdul. (v) Subsequently on 19.11.2016, Shri Abdul filed an affidavit and made partial retractions. The said affidavit is scanned in assessment-order on Page No. 8 to 9. The vital averments made by Shri Abul are such that he had left service of assessee a few days back (this fact is also stated by Shri Manish Mishra recorded on 28.11.2016 appearing at Page No. 22 of assessment-order); that he went to receive payment of his work from assessee when he was handed over cash and asked to deposit the same in bank account of assessee; that another employee Shri Kapil Bhatnagar was also deputed with him; that the pay-in slip for cash-deposit had already been handed over to the bank-cashier and at that time the police authorities intervened; that the statements given to revenue-authorities on 17.11.2016 were under mental pressure; lastly the deposit belonged to the assessee and was relatable to the business of assessee. Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 4 of 14 (vi) Thereafter, Shri Kishore Wadhwani, Managing Director of assessee- company was summoned and statements were recorded on 24.11.2016. In his statement, he admitted that the seized cash belonged to assessee-company. Regarding explanation of seized cash, he stated that on 13.10.2016 the assessee had cash balance of Rs. 8.10 lakhs in books; Rs. 10.85 lakhs was withdrawn from assessee’s bank on 18.10.2016 and Rs. 71.61 lakhs was received from sundry debtors. He further stated the assessee-company has done a business of about Rs. 3.50 crores in Diwali Season. He further submitted that Shri Abdul had resigned 3-4 days back from service. He further stated that Manish Mishra and Rajesh Dubey were doing marketing and circulation of newspapers and they were the persons who know the details and availability of cash in Raipur office. (vi) Thereafter, the authorities summoned Shri Rajesh Dubey, Shri Manish Mishra, Shri Anand Prakash and Shri Sunil Tiwari and recorded their statements. 5. Finally, Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice dated 19.11.2018 confronting the assesseequa the impugned cash, in response to which the assessee filed a detailed reply dated 30.11.2018 which is scanned by Ld. AO at Page No. 24 of the assessment-order. Theassesseemade submissions regarding the Excel-Sheets; filed the copies of debtors, bank statements and cash-book; and also explained that the impugned cash-deposit was made from the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly subjected to audit.But, however, the Ld. AO did not accept the submissions of assessee and made addition. 6. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the addition by observing and holding thus: “4.1 Ground No. 1, 3 to 5:- Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged addition of Rs. 90,58,950/- on account of unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Act. Let me first discuss certain Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 5 of 14 undisputed facts of the case. In the case of appellant an information was received from Sr SP SIB Raipur, Chhattisgarh that Shri Abdul Sharif Khan S/o Shri Abdul Rashid Khan and Shri Kapil Bhatnagar S/o Late Shri Sushil Bhatnagar were trying to deposit cash amounting to Rs. 90,58,950/- in bank account of the assessee with Bank of India, Devendra Nagar Branch, Pandri, Raipur. Both the Persons works for Dabang Dunia News Paper, Raipur. Having received information about cash seizure warrant of authorization u/s 132A was issed in the name of appellant company as well as Shri Kishore Wadhwani, Shri Abdul Sharif Khan and Shri Kapil Bhatnagar. Accordingly, summons u/s 131(1A) of the Act were issued to Shri Abdul Sharif Khan and Shri Kapil Bhatnagar and their statements were recorded on oath. Statement of Shri Kapil Bhatnagar, Editor was recorded on oath wherein, he has stated that cash belongs to Dabang Dunia, Raipur Office and he was accompanied with Shri Abdul Sharif Khan, Accountant as per directions received from Indore Head Office. Thereafter, statement of Shri Abdul Sharif Khan was recorded on oath on 17.11.2016 wherein, he has stated that the cash belongs to Raipur office and the same was to be deposited in bank account of Dabang Dunia as per instructions from Indore Head Office. He further submitted that the cash was received from Nicky, Raipur on different dates and no proper money receipt had been given to Nicky. He also stated that an excel sheet was sent on email by Shri Rajat Rathod, Senior employee mentioning the bogus outstanding account holder names in his books. Shri Abdul Sharif Khan further submitted that the assessee is also indulged in diverting black money to white money through his News paper business and the actual circulation of the paper is lesser than that shown in books of accounts., however, on 19.11.2016, Shri Abdul Sharif Khan has retracted from his statement and submitted that the statement given was under huge mental pressure. Statement of Nicky, Shri Santosh Kumar Jodhwani, was also recorded on 17.11.2016, wherein, he submitted that Shri Kishore Wadhwani called him on his mobile and told that his person would come and give payments and directed him to collect the same and give to Shri Abdul Sharif Khan. Thereafter, statement of Shri Kishore Wadhwani was recorded on oath on 24.11.2016, wherein, he has admitted that the cash belongs to Dabang Dunia and has given explanation of the seized cash and stated that a sum of Rs.8,10 lakhs was cash in hand as on 13.10.2016 and Rs. 10.85 lakhs was withdrawal from company's bank account on 18.10.2016 and balance of Rs. 71.61 lakhs was received from sundry debtors. He further submitted that the sundry debtors belongs to Marketing. Circulation, Jobwork, Scrap sales, Newspaper scrap sales. The AO after considering the entire facts held that the assessee could not explain the source of cash of Rs. 90,58,950/- with supportive corroborative evidence and the explanation given by the Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 6 of 14 assessee during the course of assessment proceedings is clearly an afterthought. 4.1.1 The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings submitted that the said amount has already been shown in gross sales in audited books of accounts and further addition will amount to double addition. The appellant further submitted that Shri Abdul Sharif Khan in his statement recorded on oath has stated that he was sent excel sheets by Shri Rajat Rathod in which a formula was applied which when the opening and closing balance are same, it is reflected as 'TRUE' and when the opening and closing balance are different, it reflects 'FALSE'. The false written against any name does not means bogus or false and the cases market as false the outstanding amount has been received by cheques and the allegation of cash adjustment does not remains. In support the appellant has filed copies of sundry debtors accounts. 4.1.2 I have considered the facts of the case, evidences filed by the appellant and findings of the AO. This is an undisputed fact that Shri Abdul Sharif Khan along with Shri Kapil Bhatnagar on 17.11.2016 were depositing sum of Rs. 90,58,950/- in cash in bank account of Dabang Dunia, with Bank of India, Raipur. As per affidavit submitted by Shri Abdul Sharif khan dated 19.11.2016, the cash was given to the cashier with deposit slip, however, the Police authorities on the basis of some information did not allow the cash deposit in bank account of the appellant company. The appellant has been in business of print and publication of newspaper and therefore, cash receipts are very genuine and part of business transactions. The appellant has also explained that not only on 17.11.2016 cash was deposited in bank account, however, during the same period in the immediate earlier year cash amounting to Rs. 1.16 crores was deposited in short span in bank account further, cash amounting to Rs. 1.71 crores was deposited in June 2016 and Rs. 46.34 Lakhs in August 2016. The appellant has also stated that during festival time, advertisements are much higher as compared to normal days and also due to demonetization, the cash recovery immediately after declaration of demonetization was comparatively much higher than normal days. Therefore, the cash seized was in process of deposit in bank account. 4.1.3 The AO has also relied upon statements of Shri Anand Prakash Dixit and Shri Sunil Tiwari who has stated that the actual circulation of the newspaper is 18000 to 19000. however, the appellant on the other hand has filed a certificate no 134/2120 dated 22.03.2016 of Audit Bureau of Circulations' wherein it has been certified that the "Average Qualifying sales' of Dabang Dunia was 84,494 which shows that the figures stated by Shri Anand Prakash Dixit and Shri Sunil Tiwari are wrong and purely imaginative. Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 7 of 14 4.1.4 The appellant before the AO has already explained the true and correct facts relating to impugned cash with supportive documentary evidences which the AO failed to consider. The AO has made addition simply on the basis of statement recorded on 17.11.2016 which was later on retracted. Once the appellant has explained the source of cash seized the onus now lies on the AO to prove that the impugned cash seized was out of undisclosed sources. One more major question which arises out here is that when the appellant through Shri Abdul Sharif Khan and Kapil Bhatnagar was in process of cash deposit in bank account, then in what circumstances they were not allowed to deposit the same in bank account and the same was taken back from the cashier of the bank. If the cash account or unaccounted when deposited in bank account does not completely become accounted. The unaccounted cash either in physical form in bank account will remain unaccounted. 4.1.5 Nevertheless, Shri Kishore Waswani, director, while replying to question no 40 of his statement recorded on oath has submitted that the appellant company has various offices across India and the cash in hand balance as on 13.11.2016 was Rs. 1,00,82,861/- and gave bifurcation of cash in hand office wise which is as under:- Name of the Office Cash in Hand as on 13.11.2016 Raipur Office Rs. 92,80,000/- Mumbai Office Rs. 50,292/- Delhi Office Rs. 4,962/- D-Live (Indore) Rs. 2,17,425/- Bhopal Office Rs. 1,41,698/- Jabalpur Office Rs. 1,22,293/- Ujjain Office Rs. 18,478/- Indore Office Rs. 2,47,443/- Total Rs. 1,00,82,861/- The appellant has also explained that huge cash was on account of recoverydue to demonetization. 4.1.6 In view of the above discussion, the AO was not justified in making addition on account of unexplained cash, which infact was duly Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 8 of 14 explained in regular books of accounts and the reason due to which such cash was found from: possession of staff of the appellant company. Thus, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 90,58,950/- is Deleted being fully recorded in regular books of accounts. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed.” 7. Before us, the Ld. DR representing the revenue made strong submission. Initially, heposed a question as to who would hand over cash to an ex-employee (like Shri Abdul) for deposit in bank account?Then, he opposed certain inferences/conclusions made by Ld. CIT(A), namely (i) In Para No. 4.1.4, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee before the AO has already explained the true and correct facts relating to impugned cash with supportive documentary evidences which the AO failed to consider; (ii) In Para No. 4.1.5, the Ld. CIT(A) has noted the details of cash-balance of Rs. 1,00,82,861/- belonging to different locations of assesseebut the cash was being deposited at Raipur and it is not a contention of assessee that cash was brought to Raipur Office from different locations. Ld. DR submitted that these observations made by Ld. CIT(A) are baseless as well as faulty. Finally, Ld. DR relied heavily upon the assessment-order passed by Ld. AO and argued that the addition was rightly madewhich must be upheld. 8. Per contra, Ld. AR relied upon a Paper-Book running over 100 Pages (which includes a Written-Submission of 12 Pages) filed by him and also made oral pleadings at length. We sum up the contentions made by Ld. AR hereunder: (i) Shri Abdul (recently left employee) and Shri Kapil Bhatnagar (employee in service) were at the bank counter, had filled the pay-in slip and handed over cash to bank cashier for deposit in assessee’s regular bank account at the time noticed by police authorities (Paper- Book Page No. 51). This fact, in itself, makes clear that the deposit was being made in regular bank account; there was nothing hidden, concealed or wrongly attempted by assessee or assessee’s persons. According to Ld. AR, the very fact that the deposit was being made in Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 9 of 14 the disclosed bank account of assessee goes in favour of assessee, rather than against assessee. (ii) The assessee was having sufficient cash-balance in its books of account, which is clearly evident from Page 49 of Paper-Book where a copy of the “Accounts Ledger Report” of “Cash” of “Raipur Unit” with Run Date 19/11/2016 Time 11:32:19, last two Pages viz. Page No. 31 and 32, is placed. This Report contains 360 entries giving full details of cash-receipts with assesseesuch as S.No., Voucher No., Voucher Date, Agencies from which amounts collected, respective amounts, etc.At the end, this Report demonstrates a cash-balance of Rs. 92,63,343/-. This Report was generated from regular books of account of assessee and was instantly filed to the Joint Director of Income-tax vide letter dated 19.11.2016 at the first available opportunity itself, a copy of the letter is placed at Page No. 51 of the Paper-Book. (iii) There had been regular cash-deposits even prior to demonetization. Monthwise cash-deposit statement for the year 2015-16 & 2016-17 was filed, copy at Page No. 86 of Paper-Book, which shows a total cash-deposit of Rs. 3.06 Crore and Rs. 2.51 Crore during those years respectively was made by assessee. It is also noteworthy that the assessee made a deposit of Rs. 1.71 Crores in the month of June, 2016 and Rs. 46.34 lakhs in August, 2016. Similar cash-deposits were alsomade by Indore and Mumbai branches of assessee which are detailed in the Statements filed at Page No. 87 & 88 of the Paper- Book. Ld. AR submitted that the nature of business carried on by assessee is such that it collects moneys from advertisers/debtors in cash and the same is afterwards deposited in bank account. Hence, there was nothing unusual in the impugned cash deposit. In fact, the AY 2016-17 was also a part of search-assessment and similar cash- deposits made by assesseehave been accepted by revenue-authorities. Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 10 of 14 (iv) The statement of Shri Abdul given on 17.11.2016 was retracted by him in affidavit dated 19.11.2016, a copy is placed at Page No. 59 & 60 of the Paper-Book, in which he has made categorical averments that he had left the service some days back (this fact is also stated by Shri Manish Mishra recorded on 28.11.2016 appearing at Page No. 22 of assessment-order); when he went to receive payment of his work from assessee, he was handed over cash and asked to deposit in bank account of assessee; that another employee Shri Kapil Bhatnagar was also sent with him; that the pay-in slip for cash-deposit had already been handed over to the bank-cashier and at that time the police authorities intervened; that the statements given to revenue- authorities on 17.11.2016 was under mental pressure and lastly the deposit was relatable to the business transactions of assessee. (v) That no onerous material was found by authorities suggesting any kind of evasion. (vi) That, in letter dated 30.11.2018, placed at Page No. 24 to 25 of the assessment-order, the assessee had given a clear explanation with respect to the Excel-Sheets; filed the copies of debtors, bank statements and cash-book; and also explained that the impugned cash-deposit was made from the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly subjected to audit. (vii) Ld. AO has already taxed the gross receipts of business and the by re- making another addition of cash-deposit sourced from those gross receipts, Ld. AO has in fact made a double taxation of same amount, which is patently wrong. (viii) Lastly, Ld. AR made a legal contention that the books of account, wherein the cash-deposits are duly recorded, are not rejected u/s 145(3); therefore the Ld. AO cannot makere-addition of what is already recorded in books of account and duly assessed. Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 11 of 14 9. We have considered rival submissions of both sides and perused the material held on record including the orders of lower authorities. We first deal with the contentions raised by Ld. DR. We have deeply considered the question posed by Ld. DR to the effect that who would hand over cash to an ex-employee for depositing in bank? In this regard, we firstly observe that the facts on record clearly reveal that the cash was not handed to Shri Abdul, ex-employee, alone but there was another employee named Kapil Bhatnagar too. It is further borne on record that Shri Abdul had been an accountant and Shri Kapil Bhatangar was editor of assessee holding a responsible position. Further, if this contention of Ld. DR is accepted, it would obviously lead to a conclusion that the impugned cash found in possession of Shri Abduldid not belong to the assessee at all and such a conclusion, we are afraid, would be fatal to the whole case made out by revenue. Moreover, there is no substance in the contention because it is quite possible to get some work done from an employee who had just left service and there is nothing wrong in it.Going further to next contention of Ld. DR that the CIT(A) had no basis to make a finding that the assessee had explained the true and correct facts relating to impugned cash with supportive documentary evidences but the AO failed to consider. When we look into the assessment-order and the documents placed in Paper-Book, we find that the assessee had all along claimed that the impugned cash belonged to the business transactions of assessee and to support this, the assesssee also filed a complete ledger account of cash generated from its books of account. Thus, it is clearly discernible that the assessee had given sufficient with documentary evidence to Ld. AO. The last contention of Ld. DR that the Ld. CIT(A) has cited a list of cash of Rs. 1,00,82,861/- in Para No. 4.1.5 but the cash was deposited at Raipur branch and it is not a contention of assessee that cash was brought to Raipur from different locations, is also not sound. We find that the assessee has simply explained that by its very nature of business, it is collecting moneys from customers at different locations, keeping the same in cash-book and depositing the same Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 12 of 14 in bank accounts. If we look at the composition of Rs. 1,00,82,861/-; the cash balance available with Raipur office was itself Rs. 92,80,000/-; which is sufficient to cover the impugned cash-deposit of Rs. 90,58,950/-. Therefore, the cash-balance held by other locations is not explained by assessee as source for cash-deposit at Raipur; it is only to substantiate the nature of assessee’s business. This discussion, as we understand, would suffice with reference to the contentions raised by Ld. DR. 10. Now, we take up the relevant contentions raised by Ld. AR. Firstly, we find much weightage in the submission that when the police intervened, the employee/ex-employee of assessee had already handed over cash to bank for deposit in regular bank account of assessee. Thus, it is manifest that they were not trying to deposit cash in any sort of undisclosed bank account of assessee/other person. Had the deposit been attempted to be made in some undisclosed bank account, the consequence would perhaps be different but that is not the case at all. By making deposit in own disclosed bank account, there is nothing hidden, concealed or wrongly attempted by assessee. Next we observe that the assessee was having sufficient cash- balance in books of account, which is clearly evident from the “Accounts Ledger Report” of “Cash” of “Raipur Unit” submitted to Ld. AO, the report embodied all details of cash-receipts from various sources and was promptly filed to the Joint Director of Income-tax as early as on 19.11.2016. Then we also observe that the assessee had been making cash-deposits all along, even prior to demonetization, which is well-established by monthwise details of cash-deposits filed in the Paper-Book for past years and even the authorities have themselves accepted such cash-deposits in AY 2016-17. Going further, we also observe that Shri Abul has partially retracted his statement vide an affidavit as early as on 19.11.2016 and also clearly averred the factual aspects. We also observe that there is no onerous material found by authorities suggesting any kind of evasion. We also note that the assessee had given an explanation of Excel-Sheets and also filed the copies of debtors, bank statements and cash-book; and tried to convince the Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 13 of 14 Ld. AO that the impugned cash-deposit was made from the books of accounts regularly maintained and duly subjected to audit. We also find laudable merit in the submission of Ld. AR that the revenue authorities had already taxed the gross receipts of business and by re-making a further addition of cash-deposit (sourced from those gross receipts), there is a double taxation of same amount which is totally wrong. Lastly, we are also convinced that unless the books of account are rejected u/s 145(3), the Ld. AO cannot make a separate addition of what has already been recorded in books of account. Thus, taking into account all factual and legal aspects, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned orderand there is no fallacy or infirmity in his action to delete the addition. Being so, we uphold the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Since the addition itself is deleted, there is no reason to apply section 115BBE. The revenue fails in its grounds. 11. Resultantly, this appeal ofrevenue is dismissed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on 03.03.2023. Order pronounced in the open court on ....../....../2023. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 03.03.2023 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File Dabang Dunia Publication Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No.172/Ind/2019 Assessment year 2017-18 Page 14 of 14 By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore 1. Date of taking dictation 28.2.23 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 28.2.23 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 28.2.23 4. Date on which the approved draft is placed before other Member 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 8. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9. Date of dispatch of the Order