Tribunal held that the cash was deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee. The returned income did not match the presumptive rate of tax on the gross turnover of the assessee. In the returns of income itself the assessee made it very clear that she was not maintaining books of account. If the Department was of the view that the returns had not been filed in terms of the provisions of section 44AF nothing prevented the Department from treating the return of income as invalid. The Assessing Officer straightaway applied the provisions of section 68 to the cash found deposited in the bank accounts knowing fully well that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. An addition under S. 68 can only be made where any sum is credited in the books of the assessee maintained for any previous year. Thus, the very sine qua non for making of an addition under section 68 presupposes a credit of the amount in the books of the assessee. Therefore since no books of account were maintained in the ordinary course of business of the assessee, no such addition under S. 68 was tenable. The Assessing Officer was to delete the additions so made under S.68 in the respective assessment years. Referred CIT v. Bhaichand H.Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) (HC), Anand Ram Raitani v. CIT (1977) 223 ITR 544 ( Gauhati)( HC) ( AY.2010-11 to 2012-13 )
Babbal Bhatia (Smt ) v. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 532 (Delhi) (Trib)
S.68: Cash credits —Presumptive taxation- Retail business-Not maintain books of account – Return filed under presumptive taxation- Cash deposits in bank accounts of assessee — Returned income not matching presumptive rate of tax on gross turnover – Department to treat return as invalid — Addition cannot be made as cash credits [ S.44AF ]