TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1), dated 21/3/2022 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 5/11/2017 admitting a total taxable income of Rs. 4,78,290/-. Assessee carries on the business in jewellery in the name and style of "Sri Lakshmi Jewellery". The case was selected for scrutiny with respect to cash deposits during the demonetization period. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served on 10/08/2019. Subsequently, notice U/s. 142(1) dated 17/1/2019 and another notice on 16/09/2019 were issued and served on the assessee to comply with the notice on 20/09/2019. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during demonetization period U/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi observed that the assessee failed to prove that the transactions are genuine and has failed to produce any other details that they were recorded in the books of account of the assessee and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter to Tribunal. 4. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts, in confirming the addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erred in law and facts, in confirming the addition without considering the binding precedent of the jurisdictional ITAT, cited before him, in the appellant's favour on similar facts. 8. Your appellant craves leave to add and or amend any of the above grounds of appeal." 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] argued that the assessee was trading in bullion till the AY 2016-17. During the AY 2017-18 due to various circumstances the assessee could not carry the trade between April to October, 2016. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee started continuing her business from November, 2016 onwards and has regularly discharged the VAT obligations. The Ld. AR further submitted that the purchases of the bullion were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. Revenue Authorities or before us with respect to sales made during the demonetization period. Inspite of several opportunities by the Ld. AO, the assessee has not complied with the notices in presenting her case before the Ld. AO. Further, it is admitted by the Ld. AR that the cash deposits arose out of the cash sales of bullion which were property disclosed in the VAT returns. We find in the paper book page 38, the assessee has not made any sales for the period April-2016 to October-2016. The assessee has made a huge sales of Rs. 78,02,226/- in the month of November-2016 and claimed the sales were genuine. From the trading account submitted by the assessee which is placed at page 43 of the paper book, we find that there is no opening....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is seen from the bank book submitted in the paper book page 20 that the assessee does not have a sufficient bank balance to make the purchase of bullion. The assessee deposited cash and then made purchase of bullion which is contradicting the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits are made out of cash sales. Bank book place at page 20 of the paper books extracted herein below for reference : 9. In view of the above findings, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and therefore no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 13th October, 2022. ============= ....