9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Resultantly the findings of the CIT(A) are not just fair, reasonable and deserves to be set aside. Consequently the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed. The creditworthiness was proved and cash deposit out of business receipts as trader cannot be concluded that appellant has given the same to the lenders. Regarding payment by Shri Satyanarayan Gupta regarding cheque received on 6.10.2016 and amount returned on 6.11.2017 by assessee through banking transaction. Rs. 2,03,87,482/- was deleted by the CIT(A). Assessee had submitted documents regarding purchase bills, confirmation, ITR of seller, sales and purchase bills. No bill was above Rs. 2 lacs, in October 2016, Mahanavmi, Vijaydashmi, Dhan Teras and Deepawali festivals. See Agson Global (P.) Ltd. [ 2022 (1) TMI 848 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] As well settled principle of law the findings of CIT(A) deleting the amount deserved to be upheld. Addition on account of capital introduced the assessee had filed copy of cash book, copy of sales book along with sales bill, copy of purchase book along with purchase bills, copy of expenses ledger, copy of confirmation of loans outstanding and copy of stock register for the period 1.4.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring demonetisation under section 69A of the Act, addition of Rs. 78,35,366/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained capital and addition of Rs. 91,07,718/- on account of difference in stock found during survey proceedings. 3. Against assessment order dated 31.12.2019 appellant / assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) vide order dated 14.12.2022 partly allowed the appeal in above terms. 4. Assessee/appellant raised grounds qua the addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loans was confirmed and addition of Rs. 5,88,708/- under section 68 of the I.T. Act on account of capital introduced by the assessee during the year out of business of sale purchase of jewellery in his proprietary concern. 5. Department of Revenue raised grounds regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans and deleting of the addition of Rs. 2,03,87,482/- made on account of cash sales and deleting of the addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- made on account of capital introduced by the proprietor and deleting of the addition of Rs. 91,07,718/- made on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be basis for addition in view of supporting documents, the opening balance was of Rs. 1,17,32,168/-. Regarding short term loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- each from close family relations Amit Goel HUF, Himanshu Goel, HUF, Mahesh Kumar Goel, HUF, Lalit Goel HUF, Sunit Goel, HUF. Cheque received on 28.07.2016 and amount returned on 14.10.2016 by assessee through account payee cheque (Paper Book 11 at page -4-42). The creditworthiness was proved and cash deposit out of business receipts as trader cannot be concluded that appellant has given the same to the lenders. Regarding payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- by Shri Satyanarayan Gupta Paper Book II at pages 43-50 regarding cheque received on 6.10.2016 and amount returned on 6.11.2017 by assessee through banking transaction. 11. Learned authorised representative for assessee submitted that Learned CIT(A) rightly deleted Rs. 2,03,87,482/- on account of cash deposit out of cash sales during demonetisation. Assessee had filed bills regarding purchase of gold jewellery , documents regarding cash sales, VAT returns and books of accounts. All purchase bills, confirmation, ITR of seller were furnished. Suspicion however strong cannot be allowed to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessee may be rejected. 16. Learned representative for the department of revenue submitted that Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 1,11,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,03,87,482/- made on account of cash sales. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 25,50,000/- made on account of capital introduced by the proprietor. Learned CIT(A) has erred as well as on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 91,07,718/- made on account of difference in value of stock found. 17. From examination of record in light of rival contention it is crystal clear that Learned CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 27,00,000/- from Smt Sanjesh and Rs. 20,00,000/- from Shree Ratan Agro Industries . Assessee filed confirmation of accounts paper book at page No. 18 has confirmation of accounts dated 1st April, 2017 of Rs. 7,00,000/- by Smt. Sanjesh. Paper book page No. 20 and 21 ledger account of Shri Rajbir Singh Sanjesh credit of Rs. 8,00,000/- as on 1st April 2021 and debit of Rs. 8,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
