9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance and based on the sworn statement of Shri Rajeev N. Narayan under the head income from other sources in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the first appellate authority has erred in sustaining the impugned addition on the basis of cash found and seized in excess of the cash book balance and the sworn statement of Shri Rajeev N.Narayan under the head income from other sources as he failed to appreciate that the assessment of the cash found as excess/unaccounted cash was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and non sustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that the details of advance received for supply of goods from National ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the the search and seizure operation. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the assessee received the amount of Rs. 21,882/- is not reflecting in the books relates to cash received from the salesman after closing the transactions as on 04.01.2016 and in respect of balance amounts, the assessee had received an advance from M/s National Pharma, Delhi for supply of goods and the same was offered to tax during the assessment year under consideration already as part of sales. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings also placed on record the VAT payment ledger monthly return filed with the appropriate authorities, details of invoices raised to fortify the above stand. Further the ld. Counsel submitted that the action of AO in makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elhi, the addition cannot be sustained on whims and fancies, therefore, the same may kindly be deleted. 5. On careful consideration of rival submissions, first of all, we note that from para 5 of the assessment order, we clearly observe that the AO has noted that the assessee has submitted the copies of invoices to show that goods were sold on 29.02.2016 against the advance money received. From the relevant para 6.1 of the first appellate order, we also found that the ld. CIT(A) had called information from M/s National Pharma, Delhi u/s.133(6) of the Act and in reply M/s informed the AO that M/s National Pharma, Delhi has neither made any purchases nor any transaction during the period under consideration i.e. 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2016. Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ength of reply letter of M/s National Pharma (received by the ld. CIT(A) on 26.04.2019). Ld. AR also pointed out that despite specific and categorically request of assessee through letter dated 21.05.2019, the CIT(A) dismissed the prayer of assessee for allowing cross examination on the authorized person/partner/director of M/s National Pharma, Delhi, proceeded to confirm the addition on the ground based on his own surmises and conjectures and even the ld. CIT(A) has also not doubted or dismissed the documentary evidence filed by the assessee in the form of sale invoices, VAT payment, ledger entries of M/s National Pharma, which was also filed before the AO as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the above factual position, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
