JAGDISH PRASAD VIJAY,RANCHI V. ITO WARD 1(4), RANCHI

ITA 62/RAN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Jagdish Prasad Vijay, a grocery shop owner, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had treated a deposit of \\u20b914.95 lacs in his bank account as unexplained income during the demonetization period. The assessee argued that the amount was from legitimate business operations and not from demonetized currency, except for a small amount of \\u20b910,000 in SBN notes deposited on 26.12.2016, which was accepted by the AO. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided, including ledger accounts of debtors and cash-in-hand extracts, and concluded that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312537 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KHUB CH. PANDAYA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMRESH KUMAR JAIN
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, RANCHI (Virtual Hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM ITA No. 62/RAN/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) JAGDISH PRASAD VIJAY 32/C, LOWER URDWAN COMPOUND, LALPUR, RANCHI 834001, JHARKHAND, Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834001 Vs. CIT (A) RANCHI, JHARKHAND, Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAYPV0704C Assessee by : Shri Amresh Kumar Jain, AR Revenue by : Shri Khub Ch. Pandaya, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 28.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] in DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049067198(1) dated 24.01.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. 02. Shri Amresh Kumar Jain, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Khub Ch. Pandaya, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the Revenue. 03. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is running a grocery shop and having a turnover of ₹20 lacs. It was submitted that the assessee had deposited ₹14.95 lacs in the bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period. It was submitted that this was out of the debtors encashment and withdrawals from the bank on earlier days. Page | 2 ITA No. 62/RAN/2023 JAGDISH PRASAD VIJAY; 2017-18 It was submitted that amount of ₹14.95 lacs was from sale proceeds. It was submitted the amount of ₹14.95 lacs has not been specified by the ld. AO as demonetized currency or SBN notes. It was submitted that SBN notes is only to the extent of 10,000/- which was deposited on 26.12.2016. It was submitted that this deposits of SBN notes has been accepted by the AO but the cash deposited in the bank account to the extent of ₹14.95 lacs has been treated as unexplained income of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee had filed its return of income by applying provisions of Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It was submitted that the entire turnover of the assessee has now been brought to tax. It was prayer of the assessee that the addition as has been made by the AO and partly reduced by the CIT (A) is liable to be deleted. 04. In reply, the ld. SR. DR submitted that the ld. CIT (A) have already granted the assessee a relief of ₹2,50,000/- by relying on the circular issued by the CBDT in regard to limit of ₹2,50,000/- which has been directed by CBDT. 05. I have considered the submission. On perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the said amount of ₹14.95 lacs is not an addition in respect of SBN notes as has been demonetized during the relevant period. These are only cash deposits during the relevant period of demonetization. The ledger accounts of the debtors of and the debtors list clearly shows that these are amounts received by the assessee. On perusal of the cash-in-hand extract for the year 2016-17 also shows that assessee had adequate drawings from the bank and collection from the debtors to make the deposits of ₹14.95 lacs. It must also be mentioned here that the SBN notes which has been deposited by the assessee on 26.12.2016 for an amount of ₹10,000/- has been accepted Page | 3 ITA No. 62/RAN/2023 JAGDISH PRASAD VIJAY; 2017-18 by the AO also. This being so as the assessee has explained the source for the deposits of ₹14.95 lacs in the bank account, the addition made by the AO and partly confirmed by the CIT (A) stands deleted. 06. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi "