TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.18,07,500/- by rejecting the genuine cash sales and treating it as unexplained cash credit in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actin of Assessing Officer in levying tax on the addition amount of Rs.18,07,500/- by invoking the prs of sec.115BBE of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retrospective manner by applying the duly substituted S.115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 33.54% as per the old provisions of S.115BBE. 5. It is therefore prayed that addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in gold & silver ornaments, filed its return of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act and taxed under section 155BBE of the Act. The assessing officer recorded in the show cause notice that assessee-firm has failed to furnish complete details of parties to whom sales were made leading to cash generation. Further assessee failed to justify the abrupt cash sales just before demonetization period. Thus, the book of assessee is also liable to be rejected. On such observation, the Assessing Officer proposed to reject the book of assessee and to make addition of Rs.18,07,500/-. 3. The show cause notice was replied by assessee by filing reply dated 23.12.2019 and 28.12.2019 respectively. The assessee-firm, in its reply dated 23.12.2019 contended that there was no specific trend in monthly cash collection during both the years due to numerous reasons like retail cash business, festival season, marriage seasons, agricultural crop sales season, NRI customer season etc. Thus, it is not correct method to compare monthly sales with the previous year's monthly sales. The comparative details of cash sales and labour income from April, 2015 to November, 2015 similarly for April, 2016 to November, 2016 respectively in the following manner:- Month Cash sales, labour income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd addresses respectively. The assessee also stated that they have provided the details like names and brief address of all those customers to whom the retail sale below Rs.2.00 lakh but assessee was not required to collect the statutory details such as, PAN and address proof of such customers whose sales are less than Rs.1.00 lakh, generally, the jewellery purchased in less than Rs.1.00 lakh, the assessee stated that assessee provided details of PAN of top sales of party and Assessing Officer has not made any independent inquiry or deputed Inspector nor issued any notice under section 133(6) of the Act. The assessee, on the basis of comparative sales of April, 2015 to April, 2016 and April, 2016 to October, 2016 submitted that there was no much variation in total sales in both the years. No defect was pointed out in the books of account of assessee. On the contrary, Assessing Officer rejected assessee's books of account in arbitrary and unjustified manner. The assessee submitted that even if the book of assessee was not found to be acceptable to the Assessing Officer, he ought to have estimated the profit involved in such sale of Rs.18,07,500/-. 6. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ember, 2016 as compared to preceding months of last year. The book of assessee cannot be rejected without specifying any defect found by Assessing Officer. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: * CIT vs. Amitbhai Gunvantbhai [1981] 129 ITR 573 (Guj), * R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand vs. CIT 75 ITR 33, * CIT vs. Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj) * St.Teresa's Oil Mill vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) 8. On the addition of Rs.18,07,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer wrongly rejected the books of account of assessee and no addition can be made as increased sales was on account of Diwali festival and booming sales compared to the earlier year. In the last year, Diwali festival was in the month of November and during the year under consideration, the Diwali festival fall in the month of October. The assessee also furnished details of sales of preceding and succeeding years respectively. On the basis of such figure, the Ld. AR for the assessee claimed that assessees sale increased about 32% in the current year compared to earlier year and there is a marginal inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sandu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 (SC) * CIT vs. Shilpa dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj) * J.K. Chokshi vs. ACIT Tax Appeal No.149 of 2003 (Guj) * Green Associates vs. PCIT -Tax Appeal No.1199 of 2018 (Guj) * DCIT vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. 329 ITR 1 (Guj) * CIT vs. Mhaskar General Hospital in Tax Appeal No.1474 of 2009 (Guj) * Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT 64 ITRT 593 (Cal) * Mansfield and Sons vs. CIT 48 ITR 254 (Cal) * CIT vs. Chensing Ventures (2007) 291 ITR 258 (Mad) * CIT vs. S.K. Srigir & Bros. 171 Taxman 264 (Kar) 10. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that all the submissions made by ld AR for the assessee has already been considered by ld CIT(A). The assessee failed to substantiate the sudden jump in the sales in the month of October and November 2016 compare with the corresponding period of same month in 2015. On the issue of rejection of books of account, the ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the assessing officer in para 5.5 of assessment order has clearly recorded the satisfaction reg....