SWARAJYA LAKSHMI KOTA, Repalle V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

MA 39/VIZ/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by Swarajya Lakshmi Kota against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The application sought rectification of the ITAT's earlier order which had added cash deposits made during the demonetization period to the assessee's income. The Tribunal had previously rejected the assessee's claims due to lack of evidence, specifically the absence of sales invoices supporting the cash deposits claimed to be from bullion sales. The Tribunal's decision was based on the failure to produce adequate documentation and the unusual timing and volume of sales during the demonetization period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135719 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43; 73

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणमपीठ, ͪवशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM Įीदुåवूǽआरएलरेɬडी, ÛयाǓयकसदèयएवंĮीएसबालाकृçणन, लेखासदèयकेसम¢ BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 39/Viz/2022 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.102/Viz/2022) (Ǔनधा[रणवष[/ Assessment Year :2017-18) Swarajya Lakshmi Kota, Repalle, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. PAN: ACMPL 3592 N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथȸ/ Appellant) (Ĥ×यथȸ/ Respondent) अपीलाथȸकȧओरसे/ Appellant by : Sri GVN Hari, AR Ĥ×याथȸकȧओरसे/ Respondent by : Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR सुनवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 04/05/2023 O R D E R PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 102/Viz/2022 (AY: 2017-18), dated 13/10/2022. 2 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR argued that the ITAT in paragraph 8 of its order dated 13/10/2022 (supra) has generalized that the assessee has deposited cash and then made purchase of bullion and therefore the cash deposits are not made out of the cash sales. The Ld. AR submitted that the cash deposits made on 10/11/2016 for Rs. 16 lakhs and on 11/11/2016 for Rs. 15 lakhs was made before the sale of bullion and hence accepted the findings of the ITAT. With respect to the cash deposits on 18/11/2016 for Rs. 30 lakhs and on 30/12/2016 for Rs. 12 lakhs, the Ld. AR submitted that these cash deposits are made out of the cash sales and hence pleaded to allow the same. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the ITAT. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the order of the Tribunal (supra). It is an admitted and established fact that the assessee has not carried out any sales during the period April 2016 to October 2016. The Assessee has made a huge sale of Rs.78,02,226/- in November 2016 during the demonetization period and claimed that the sales were genuine. Since the assessee is trading in Gold Bullion, we could not accept the sales made by the assessee during the demonetization period by way of cash without the 3 production of proper sale invoices either before the Ld. Revenue Authorities or before us. Merely the assessee placed reliance on the VAT returns filed and pleaded that there is genuinity in the sales made by the assessee from November 2016 to March 2017. The ITAT in the absence of the evidences in the form of sales invoice copies supporting the sales effected by the assessee rejected the arguments of the Ld. AR. The ITAT in Paragraph-7 of its order has clearly mentioned these facts, which is extracted herein below for reference: “7. We have he ard both the sides and pe rused the mate ri al av ail abl e on record as wel l as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. The onl y issue raised by th e assessee in its grounds of appe al is wi th respect to addi tion of Rs. 73 l akhs being the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Admi tte dl y, the Ld. AR f ail ed to produce the books of accounts before the Ld. Revenue Authorities or before us with respect to sal es made during the demonetization period. Inspite of several opportunities by the Ld. AO, the assessee has not compl ied wi th the notices in presenting her case before the Ld. AO. Further, it is admitted by the Ld. AR that the cash deposits arose out of the cash sal es of bull ion which we re property discl osed in the VAT returns. We find in the paper book page 38, the assessee has not made an y s al es for the period April-2016 to October-2016. The assessee has made a huge sal es of Rs. 78,02,226/- in the month of November-2016 and cl aime d the sal es were genuine. From the trading account submitte d by the asse ssee which is pl aced at page 43 of the paper book, we find that there is no opening stock to the assessee for effecting the s al es during November-2016. The assessee cl aime d to h ave purchase d Gol d Bull ion from various parties as de tail ed in page 63 of the paper book to effect the s al es made during the demonetization period. Ho wever, the assessee fail ed to produce the sal es invoice copies supporting the sal es effected by the assessee. It is imperative to note here the assessee is not a re tail trader to cl aim th at the sal es have been made through cash. The assessee has al so submitted in her paper book th at the p ayments h ave been made b y cheques to the suppl iers. Rel iance pl aced b y the Ld. AR on the case of ACIT vs. 4 Hirapp an a Je wel lers (supra) is dis tinguishabl e on facts th at the assessee in this case is a retail trader i n je well ery and h as made regul ar s al es during the entire ye ar. Si mil arl y, rel iance pl ace by the assessee in the case of ITO vs. Sri Tatip arti Satyan arayan a (supra) is distinguishabl e on facts th at the assessee had sufficient opening bal ance of cash to deposit during the demonetization period. Hence, both the cases cannot be appl ied to the instan t appe al . Even the asse ssee’s cl aim th at she is maintaining books of account as per cl ause 11(b) of Form 3CD nothing is produced before us or before the Ld. Revenue Authorities to substanti ate the cl aim of cash s al es.” 4. Since, the Bench has not relied on the sales made by the assessee in the absence of sales invoices, the Bench has treated the entire cash deposits not arising from the sale of bullion and hence has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 102/viz/2022. Therefore, we find that there is no mistake apparent in the order of the ITAT dated 13/10/2022 and accordingly, this Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 04 th May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (दुåवूǽआर.एलरेɬडी) (एसबालाकृçणन) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) ÛयाǓयकसदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated :04/05/2023 5 OKK - SPS आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. Ǔनधा[ǐरती/ The Assessee–Swarajya Lakshmi Kota, 11-16-146/1, 9 th Ward, Main Road, Railpet, Repalle, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522265. 2. राजèव/The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Ramalingeswara Peta, Tenali, Guntur District. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 4. आयकरआयुÈत (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax (A), 5. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयअͬधकरण, ͪवशाखापटणम/ DR,ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6. गाड[फ़ाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam