Tribunal overturns income addition, finding burden on AO to prove sales genuineness. Assessee's explanation accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, setting aside the addition of Rs. 81,07,050 to the income as sales. It held that the burden was on the Assessing Officer (AO) to prove the sales were genuine, which was not established. The Tribunal found the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the fictitious nature of the sales entries plausible and noted the lack of evidence from the revenue authorities to support their claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the addition to the income was deleted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Addition of Rs. 81,07,050 to the income of the assessee as sales.
3. Assessment of the actual profit and sales entries.
4. Burden of proof regarding the fictitious nature of sales entries.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee's counsel argued for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing health problems of the director, which caused a delay in filing the appeal by 18 days. The director's affidavit supported this claim. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found the reason for the delay to be reasonable and sufficient, thus admitting the appeal for adjudication.

2. Addition of Rs. 81,07,050 to the Income of the Assessee as Sales:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 81,07,050 to the assessee's income, treating it as actual sales. The assessee contended that these were fictitious entries made to inflate turnover for obtaining bank credit. The AO rejected this explanation, considering it an afterthought to evade tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the lack of convincing evidence from the assessee and the consistency of the profit figures with the books of accounts.

3. Assessment of the Actual Profit and Sales Entries:
During a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, discrepancies were found between the cash balance in the books and actual cash. The net profit recorded was Rs. 1,57,05,468, but the director claimed this was inflated due to unrecorded expenses. The AO and CIT(A) did not accept the assessee's explanation that the sales entries were fictitious, as the books of accounts were claimed to be genuine by the assessee.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Fictitious Nature of Sales Entries:
The assessee argued that the burden of proof was on the revenue authorities to establish that the income was indeed earned by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide evidence of cash sales and that the series of bills for XYZ differed from regular sales, indicating they were not part of regular sales. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation plausible and noted the lack of evidence from the revenue to prove the sales were actual cash sales.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO failed to establish that the sales entries were actual cash sales and not fictitious as claimed by the assessee. The addition of Rs. 81,07,050 was not justified, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A) and ruled that the burden was on the AO to prove the sales were genuine, which was not done. The appeal was thus allowed, and the addition was deleted.

---