9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,307/- by making addition of Rs. 1,27,15,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit during demonetization as undisclosed income and further made addition of Rs. 99,15,777/- on account of under valuation of stock. 3. Against such order assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide order dt. 18/12/2019 decided the appeal of the assessee wherein based on the material available on the record has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee without providing fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has reduced the addition made on account of cash deposited in SBN during the demonetization from Rs. 1,27,15,000/- to Rs. 85,00,000/- being 2/3 of such cash deposited and further reduced the amount of under valuation of stock from Rs. 99,15,777/- to Rs. 23,99,550/-. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- "1. That the impugned Appeal Order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared such sales in the VAT return which were also duly accepted by the respective authorities. 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that while confirming the additions, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts that he himself has accepted 1/3 amount of cash deposit as explained and on presumptions has confirmed the 2/3 of the cash deposited into bank as undisclosed without assigning any reason for accepting the sales of Rs. 42,15,000/-. It is submitted by ld.AR that the sale bills representing the sales of Rs. 42,15,000/- accepted by ld. CIT(A) are same as for the remaining sales doubted by him. He thus prayed for the deletion of the addition so confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Reliance is also placed on the following judgements of various benches of Tribunal wherein the additions made on account of cash deposited during the period of demonetization was deleted by the Tribunal: - Subhash Chand Gupta Vs. ACIT, CC-29 New Delhi in ITA No. 1557/Del/2021 order dt. 18/10/2024 - B.L. & Sons Jewellers Vs. ITO in ITA NO. 3142/Del/2023 vide order dt. 11/10/2024 - Rachit Agarwal Prop. M/s Ashok Kumar Gupta & Co. Vs. ITO reported in (2024) 162 Taxmann.com 49 (chandigarh Trib.) vide o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable as on the closing hours of 08.11.2016 i.e. the date when the demonetization was announced by the hon'ble prime minister and was the last day upto which the SBN could be accepted as valid currency. The AO is required to take into consideration the record of the assessee such as stock register, possibility of back-dating of cash sales or fictitious sales etc. before making any allegation about the genuineness of the cash deposited in SBN during the demonetization period. No such adverse observations were made by the AO or by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee's records are not in conformity with the accepted accounting principles. Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) have doubted the availability of stock prior to sales. When the assessee has submitted complete details and thus discharges its onus, whereas no contrary material whatsoever was brought on record by the AO to disprove the details filed by the assessee. As observed above, assessee has already included the entire cash sales in the total sales and the profits have been derived which were offered for tax, thus taxing the same income twice once in the sales and other when the sale consideration was realised and deposited in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified the stock and cash position as per books and had accepted the same. Complete books of account and cash book was submitted to the Assessing Officer and no discrepancy was pointed out. On this basis CIT(A) deleted the addition. Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that 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. Therefore, cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department." 14. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal in other cases relied upon by the assessee, as listed above, also expressed the same view. Thus by respectfully following the said judgements and also in view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has committed gross error in not accepting the cash generated out of sales made by the assessee on 08/11/2016 as genuine when he himself has accepted the part sales made which is also supported by the same bills which have not been accepted for confirming the addition. Accordingly, we hereby direct to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
