9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder 2 I am the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the case of Mis Viswa and Devji Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., New No. 16. Old No. 239, T.V. Swamy Road (East RS Poram, Coimbatore- 641002 (PAN AACCV4942M) 3 It is seen from this office records that the last date for filing Appeal against the order passes by the La CIT(A) NFAC in DIN & Order No ITSANFAC/6/250/2022/23/10459211661) dated 24 09 2022 in the above case the assessment year 2017-18 has expired on 23.11.2022 (ie sixty days from the date of the order) The Appeal is filed before the Hon'ble ITAT on 06 02.2024 There is a delay of 440 days (from 23.11.2022 to 06 02 2024) 4 The delay in filing the Income tax Appeal has happened due to a technical glitch within the TBA system due to which the order dated 24.09.2022 of CIT(A) was not reflected on the portal as and when it was passed The events and circumstances that led to the delay caused in identifying the case are as follows Post the introduction of National Faceless Appeals Centre all the orders passed un 250 gets updated in the ITBA portal, available to he downloaded for the officers holding jurisdiction over the assessed. These orders are to be reflected in the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,41,81,000/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. The brief facts are that, the assessee M/s. Viswa and Devji Dimonds Pvt ltd. is a company deriving income from business of retail sales of Gold and diamond jewellery and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on26.10.2017, admitting an income of Rs. 1,29,33,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for details of cash deposits during demonetization period. In response to notices, the assessee filed the details through e-proceedings. In support of the demonetization deposits the assessee submitted sales ledger, cash book, stock and VAT returns along with detailed statement of month wise cash deposits to the bank account and corresponding cash sales during the assessment proceedings. However, the ld.AO was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, made an addition of total of cash deposits of Rs. 8,41,81,000/- to tax u/s. 69Ar.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment u/s. 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewelry or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. 2.9 It is also brought on record that the Department need not locate source of receipt- Where the assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assessee, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source as held in CIT v. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC)/A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). 2.10. In the circumstances, the cash deposit of amounting to Rs. 8,41,81,000/- (11,42,82,500-3,01,01,500) in SBN's is brought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A and charged to tax u/s 115BBE of the IT Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is initiated separately. 3.0 Since the cash sales amounting to Rs. 8,41,81,000/- is bogus and fictitious, the Gross Profit admitted in the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and books of accounts before the AO. There was a survey u/s 133A by investigation wing where also the assessee explained its purchases sales and stock. These explanation were given before the AO also. However, the AO was not satisfied with the assessee's explanation of sales citing the reason that the assessee could not furnish proper KYC documents of the buyers during the course of survey, the average sales of the firm was not matching with peak and non-peak season. In the present case there was no survey or any other development. AO had do document except the suspicion that assessee must have manupulated the sales as the quantum of sales is extraordinary. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts and the circumstances of the case and considering the decisions in similar cases by various courts as discussed above, I have no hesitation to hold that the cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has admitted as income. When there was sufficient stock to effect the sales and no defect has been found in the stock as well as the sales and purchases and since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances raised on account of demonetization announced by the Hon'ble Prime Minister, to cater extra ordinary demand from the huge number of customers. Further, the ld.AR stated that the customers were in hurry to pick their articles and prepared to accept the jewellery without even checking at the price, design and quality, such was the magnitude of the sales. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, stated that the assessee has maintained proper books of accounts, stock records and have been furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessment was concluded by the Assessing Officer without finding any defect in the books of accounts presented and accepted the same. The ld.AR also stated that the following documents were produced before the AO and that of ld.CIT(A) in support of the genuineness of the transactions carried out during the A.Y. 2017-18 including the demonetisation period in paper book Volume -I consisting of 1 to 676 pages: Sl. No Date Particulars Page No 1 17.11.2023 Return of Income and Financials 1 2 24.09.2018 Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act 19 3 07.08.2019 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 23 4 --- Reply to Notice under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audit report of the assessee and not doubted the stock and purchases but with the assumption of impracticability of sales made on a particular day as unexplained and brought to tax, which is against provisions of the Act. Further, the assessee also filed a paper book volume II consisting of the stock registers of Gems (Page Nos.1 to 17), Diamond (Page Nos.18 to 130) and Gold (Page Nos.131 to 262) for the F.Y. 2016-17 along with all the invoices raised on 08.11.2016 (Page Nos.263 to 281) having item name, bar code, gross weight, net weight, carrot, value, Discount, vat and bill amount of each item sold and summary of yearwise cash deposits (page No.282). Therefore, the action of the ld.CIT(A) cannot be interfered and prayed for dismissing the appeal of the revenue. Further, the ld.AR also brought to our notice of gazette notifications on demonetisation and certain case laws in support of the ld.CIT(A) order, comprising of paper book volume III - page nos.1 to 47 and prayed for considering the same and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record, all the paper books and gone through orders of the authorities below. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock held before the demonetisation day. The allegations/statistics relied upon by Assessing Officer to take an adverse view is not backed up by relevant evidence/material and therefore the action of AO, which has been rightly set aside by the ld.CIT(A) and hence cannot be interfered. The finding of the AO that such abnormal sales could not be achieved immediately upon announcement of demonetization by the Governmentare bereft of any concrete evidence to prove otherwise on record. It is trite law that no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises.Moreover, since cash generated out of sales has been credited in the books of accounts, the provisions of section 69A could not be invoked in the present case. The assessee's reliance on the coordinate bench decision in the following cases which are identical to the present are taken into consideration: - Ganapathy Palaniyappan Vs DCIT in ITA No.557/Chny/2022, dated 04.01.2023 - M/s.Micky Fireworks Industries Vs.ACIT in ITA No.264/Chny/2023, dated 26.07.2023 - R R Foods Vs.ITO in ITA No.1359/Chny/2023, dated 03.07.2024 Further, the coordinate bench decision in the case of Smt. Durga Devi Mundhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
