Recorded business sales cannot be taxed again as unexplained cash credit without specific discrepancies in books or receipts.

Cash deposits recorded as business sales were not treated as unexplained cash credit where purchases and sales were already accepted, the books were not rejected, and no specific discrepancy was found; absence of a stock register alone was held insufficient, and taxing the same receipts again would amount to double taxation. The deletion of the addition was upheld. By contrast, a capital introduction claimed to be sourced from a gift required proof of the donor's identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness; as that verification was incomplete and the appellate relief lacked adequate inquiry, the matter was remanded for de novo examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the addition made as unexplained cash credit on account of cash deposits arising from cash sales was justified; (ii) Whether the partial relief granted in respect of the capital introduction treated as unexplained cash credit was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the addition made as unexplained cash credit on account of cash deposits arising from cash sales was justified.

Analysis: The addition was founded on the absence of a stock register and the inference that cash sales had been preponed. The recorded purchases and sales, however, were not shown to suffer from any specific discrepancy, the books of account were not rejected, and the cash book and sale records were before the lower authorities. The absence of quantitative stock records by itself was held not fatal where the sales and purchases were otherwise accepted and no material was brought by the Revenue to discredit the business receipts already entered in the books. The finding of the first appellate authority that taxing the same business receipts again as unexplained cash credit would amount to double taxation was accepted.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,48,14,793 was upheld and is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the partial relief granted in respect of the capital introduction treated as unexplained cash credit was sustainable.

Analysis: The claimed source of the capital introduction was a gift from a maternal uncle, but the material before the first appellate authority did not establish the complete identity of the donor, the genuineness of the transaction, or the creditworthiness for the full amount. The appellate authority had granted relief of Rs. 10,00,000 without adequate inquiry, verification, or observance of the procedural requirements applicable to additional material. In these circumstances, the matter required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer on a de novo basis after proper verification of the documents and the source of the credit.

Conclusion: The relief of Rs. 10,00,000 was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The first appellate relief on the cash-deposit addition was sustained, while the relief granted on the capital-introduction issue was vacated and sent back for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where business sales and purchases are recorded in regular books and no specific discrepancy is found, the absence of a stock register alone does not justify treating cash deposits from such sales as unexplained cash credit; but a credit claimed as gift must be supported by verifiable evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness before relief can be granted.

---