Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. We agree with the contention of the Ld.Sr.DR that since the reopening is under the old regime, the decision in relation to new regime will not be applicable. However, in so far as escapement of income is concerned our adjudication is as under.

7. The undisputed fact that emerges is that the assessee is holding cash balance of Rs.1,63,40,303/- before incurring cash expenses which is duly evidenced by its cash book. The books of the assessee have duly been audited u/s.44AB of the Act and the lower authorities have not found any defect in the same. The assessee is engaged in silk saree trading and achieved turnover of Rs.1,66,79,636/-. The AO, in an arbitrary manner, accepted part of the source and rejected the other part whereas all the deposits have same source. The only reasoning of the AO is that there is difference in the quantum of deposit between two AY's and therefore the absolute difference is sought to be added as unexplained. In our view, the absolute difference of cash deposit between two AYs cannot be added. Merely because there is an incremental difference :-5-: S.A.No.100/Chny/2025 & ITA. No.:2664 /Chny/2025 cannot lead to a presumption that there is an unexplained money. In fact, and as observed by the AO, in the very next AY there is a decrease in the sales turnover and consequently, the cash deposit would also be less in comparison to the subject A.Y., will that mean that the Assessee has supressed sales. Therefore, the presumption of the AO is ill-founded and baseless. Further, the lower authorities seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is an increase in the sales during the subject A.Y. and consequently, the cash deposit has also increased. The sales turnover declared for GST and Income Tax purposes is accepted, however, some portion of the cash deposit made out of the sales cannot be treated as unexplained on presumptive basis unless the lower authorities have brought on any concrete evidence. Further, in so far as the jurisdictional Tribunal decision in the case of Vidhiyasekaran Pradeep Malliraj Vs ITO (supra) relied upon by the Ld. DR, we find it is distinguishable on facts as in that case the issue was deposit of SBN during demonetization period whereas in the present case the only ground of the AO is that there cannot be any increase in cash deposit between two A.Y. and therefore the incremental difference has been sought to be taxed as unexplained money. Per contra, the Ld.AR relied on the jurisdictional Tribunal decision in the case of Balu Vignesh in ITA.No.1605/Chny/2024 dated 05.11.2024 wherein it is held as under: