9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "1. For that order u/s. 250 of the I.T.Act dated 17.8.2023 as passed by the ld CIT(A) NFAC is illegal and arbitrary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. For that ld CIT(A) is not justified to confirm addition of Rs. 44,92,000/- towards cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee as un-explained cash credit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 3. For that estimation of net profit @ 6% on the turnover of Rs. 5,16,06,634/- and consequential addition of Rs. 38,96,392/- (Rs.30,96,398/- determined by ld AO) as sustained by the ld CIT(A) is illegal, high and excessive on the facts and in the circumstances of the case." 4. The appeal is delayed by 423 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash books and ledgers were not produced before the Assessing Officer. As per ld AR, the books of account were very well available with the assessee. However, as the details of sales registers have already been submitted to the Excise Department, they could not be available for examination by the Assessing Officer. With regard to estimation of income, ld AR submits that estimation was on higher side though the Assessing Officer has stated it reasonable, however, had not cited any single case on record for application of such high profit. With regard to addition of Rs. 44,92,000/- deposited in the bank account maintained by the assessee during the period from 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the Assessing Officer has made addition of the amount depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd requested that the assessee should explain the source of cash deposit during the demonetization period and since the assessee has failed to do so, the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition and the order of the ld CIT(A) confirming such addition be upheld. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is dealing in IMFL, where most of the sales were made in cash. The assessee is bound to deposit the sales registers to the Excise Authorities after the expiry of the licence period, therefore, day to day sales as declared by the assessee has already been verified by the Excise Department and same has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer also. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of Devi Prasad Vishwannath (supra). In that case, there was cash deposit of Rs. 20,000/-, which has no relation with the business of the assessee and in these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act on such deposit could separately be made even if the income is estimated by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act (old section 13 of the Indian Income Tax Act). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that this has to be seen depending upon the facts of each case and cannot be straight forward applied in all the cases. In the instant case, as it is evident that the bank deposits were made by the assessee out of IMFL business sales proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
