9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 68 read with the section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanation along with the evidences brought on record by the assessee explaining the cash was deposited out of the cash sales made by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above additions by indulging in surmises without bringing on any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption and assumption. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition, despite the fact that the assessee has regularly maintained complete stock records, books of accounts are audited as per law and nothing adverse were pointed out both by the AO as well as CIT(A). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition rejecting the contention of the assessee that the quantity purchased and sold being completely tallying, the addition made by the AO cannot be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts audited as per law and nothing adverse were pointed out before the both lower authorities. 5. Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. The Ld. AO observed in his order that the assessee has made manipulation for the source of cash deposited during demonetization period and the cash deposit during above period is nothing but the unexplained cash credits found in the books of accounts as per section 68 of the Act, so, the cash deposited of Rs. 86 lakhs during demonetization period source of which could not be proved. However aggrieving with the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and Ld. CIT(A) while disposing the appeal preferred by the assessee, found force in the submissions of the assessee with respect to deposit of demonetization currency in more than one transaction and stated that in view of submissions regarding detailed item wise stock summary in the form 3CA, there is no any adverse bearing in the case of appellant. The relevant part of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "6.2 The appellant has filed detailed written submissions in this regard rebutting the observations of the AO in the assessment order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of mobile phones has been reported under line item others in the quantitative details reported in 3CD. In view of the sald submission filed before the AO during the assessment proceedings the observation of the AO in the assessment order has no adverse bearing in the case of the appellant. As regards, the observation of the AO with respect to the different trades reported in KYC submitted before the banks, the appellant has submitted that he is engaged in the trading of computer hardware, mobile phones and related components and accessories for which stock summary reflecting opening, purchase, sale and closing stock of these items were submitted before the AO along with purchase and sale invoices and the respective confirmation from debtor and creditors. The appellant has further submitted that the wrong trade reported in the KYC was mistake on the part of the bank not him which cannot be the basis to doubt the trade conducted by him which are otherwise supported by the documentary evidences. In this regard, I am of the view that the trade of computer hardware, mobile phones and related components and accessories conducted by the appellant in the year under consideration is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of natural justice and to secure the possibility of any revenue leakage in this regard, out of total cash sales of Rs. 32,12,155/- reported for the month of October 2016, sales of Rs. 8,00,000/- which approx. 25% of sales reported by the appellant in the month of October, 2016 is treated to be explained. In view of the above findings the addition made by the AO is deleted to the extent of Rs. 58,78,890/- (Rs.50,78,890 + Rs. 8,00,000/-) and the balance addition of Rs. 27,21,110/- is hereby confirmed." 7. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO to the extent of Rs. 58,78,890/- but the balance addition of Rs. 27,21,110/- confirmed, which is questioned before us. 8. The Ld. AR submitted that during assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted all the relevant documents for kind perusal of the Ld. AO as under: 1) Copy of acknowledgment of return and computation of income for the relevant assessment year (PB Page no. 1-2) 2) Copy of audited financial statements (PB page no. 3-7) 3) Copy of tax audit report (PB page no. 8-25) 4) Details of bank account along with the details of deposit made (PB page no. 45) 5) Details of all the bank accounts maintained alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales made from July 2016 - September 2016, confirmed the balance sales of Rs. 27,12,110/-, and Ld. AR submitted in this regard it was without any basis. 11. The Ld. AR further submitted that the by Ld. CIT(A), no adverse inference was drawn in respect to business activities of the assessee, stock details submitted by the assessee and even no defect / discrepancies found in the books of account prepared by the assessee. It is relevant to mention here that while made addition, the Ld. AO is not rejected the book of accounts and not found any discrepancies in the stock, sales and purchases. 12. In strengthened the arguments advance on behalf of the assessee, the Ld. AR relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kailash Jewellery House, 2010(4) TMI 1070- Delhi High Court. In which Hon'ble Delhi High Court held at where the sum of Rs. 24,58,400/- was credited in the sale account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return, the cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made. 13. He also relied upon the order of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
