9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cash deposits up to December 2015 i.e. 2,62,75,000/-. The audited books of accounts of the assessee has not been rejected and the sales of the assessee has not been disturbed, then the Revenue Authorities are precluded from making any addition. Even after observing that the cash deposits of the Assessee was much lower than the previous year, CIT (A) has not given any valid reason to sustain the addition, thus, in our considered view, the order passed by the CIT (A) is found to be erroneous - addition sustained by the CIT (A) is hereby deleted. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. Amit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar part of the of the business of the appellant. Therefore, the assessment completed as such may be held ab-initio invalid. 4. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts, in partially confirming the order framed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) and that too without considering the material on record and comparison sheet in totality; therefore, the additions made as such per Ground of Appeals No. 2 may be liable to be deleted. 5. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts, in partially confirming the order framed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) and that too without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making addition of Rs. 38,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act vide Assessment Order dated 31/12/2019. As against the Assessment Order dated 31/12/2019, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 28/08/2021 sustained the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 38,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 28/08/2021 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the authorities below have not considered the past history of the assessee, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account which were duly audited and not rejected by the Assessing Officer, part of the cash deposited during demonetization appears to be explained. The appellant had not revised VAT returns. The total cash deposits of the appellant upto December 2016 of Rs. 54,00,000/- are much lower than cash deposits upto December 2015 of Rs. 2,62,75,000/-. While turnover of the appellant has increased substantially compared to FY 2015-16, cash sales have declined substantially. From perusal of above monthly sales for FY 2016-17, it is held that cash sales and cash deposits upto 30.09.2016 stand explained on the basis of past trends and cash balance was only Rs. 4,83,641 as on 30.09.2016. In October 2015, cash sales were Rs. 50,50,000 out of which cash o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
