आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (cid:7008)यायपीठ, च(cid:7382)े ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:7088)ी मन ु कुमार िग(cid:7407)र, (cid:7008)याियक सद(cid:7021)य एवं (cid:7088)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:7021)य के सम(cid:6979)

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1393/Chny/2024 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष (cid:6981) / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dharan Bath Fittings, The Assistant Commissioner of

40/41, Seelanaickenpatty v. Income Tax, Circle -1, Bye-pass, Salem – 636 201.

Hosur.

[PAN: AAJFD-0104-F]

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent) अपीलाथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर स/ेAppellant by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCA (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर स/े Respondent by : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश O R D E R /

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ludhiana, for the assessment year 2017-18, vide order dated

28.03.2024.

2. The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming that demonetized cash of Rs.3,98,500/- deposited into Bank after 17-11-2016 constituted income taxable under section 69A.

2. Not having found any defect in the tax audited books of account, or in copy of cash book filed before Assessing Officer, cash balance of Rs.57,20,600/- as on 08-11-2016 ought to have been. accepted to be available to deposit Rs.35,10,000/- on 10-11-2016 and 16-11-2016 and the balance of Rs.3,98,500/- between 17-11-2016 and 23-11-

2016.

3. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any basis to hold that deposits made after lff-11-2016 were belated ones.

4. Commissioner (Appeals) should have accepted copies of certificates filed from two banks and of an appeal by the then Finance Minister filed before Assessing Officer advising public to wait and deposit cash in installments and not at one go.

5. "As there was ostensible source of business income from dealing in bath ·fittings, citations relied on to claim that special higher. rates of Section 115BBE were inapplicable, should have been discussed. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have considered all contentions raised by Written Submissions dated

13-02-2024 filed (Copy attached).

6. For these and other reasons which may be stated, at the' time of hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that the income returned may please be directed to be accepted.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of trading in bath fittings, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18, admitting a total income of Rs.11,50,740/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued. On perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) dated 26.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs.3,98,500/- as unexplained income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by holding as under:

“3. The cash balance of the assessee as on 08.11.2016 is Rs.57,20,599-. It is seen that the assessee has made cash deposits in SBNs of Rs.39,08,500/- during demonetization period. Out of this, sum. of Rs.35, 10,000/- is deposited· in two installments on 10.11.2016 and 16.11.2016 which is within a reasonable period of time. The balance amount of SBNs of Rs.3,98,500/- is deposited from 17.11.2016 to 29.11.2016. Since demonetization was announced on 08.11.2016, the assessee had no reason to hold such huge amount of cash. The assessee also has made deposits into the bank accounts on five different dates after 16.11.2016. The assessee could have deposited the entire amount in one transaction. The assessee has failed to explain the sam