TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decision cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer on the basis of seized documents found during the course of the search as noted that the assessee has received cheque of Rs 18,93,528/- from M/s Jagjit Industries on account of sales and out of that an amount Rs. 18,32,722/- was transferred to M/s Hari Mohan Enterprises on account of purchases. Since these were financial transactions without making any actual purchases M/s Hari Mohan after deducting the commission @2% amounting to Rs. 32,650/- returned the balance amount of Rs.17,96,072 to the asseseee, who after deducting an amount of Rs 1,35,578/- towards its commission has re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and should have verified the transactions, if any, over and above the figures mentioned in the seized documents. In our opinion the Assessing Officer cannot estimate the unaccounted purchase and sale for assessment year 2013-14 based on the material found in the search proceedings relating to A.Y. 2014-15. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to obtain information from the parties regarding transactions carried on by the assessee during the above 2 years. In case there is no unaccounted transaction with the above parties over and above what has been found during the course of search as per the seized ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he books of account are not rejected. We find the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Yunus Haji Fazawala Vs. CIT (supra) has held that action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing 25% of purchases by doubting its genuiness without rejecting the books of account cannot be sustained. The order of the Tribunal confirming the disallowance was accordingly reversed. Since in the instant case also the books of account are not rejected, therefore, action of the CIT(A) in deleting such addition is justified. Further we find merit in the findings of the CIT (A) that if the action of the Assessing Officer is accepted then profit of the assessee will be 32.9% for A.Y. 2013-14 and 56.09% for A. Y. 2014-15 which is illogical and absurd. Sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t as taxable income. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1, 4 (SC). If an assessee fails to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amount received during the accounting year, the Assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an assessable nature. A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT, [1958] 34 ITR 807, 810 (SC). The presumption arising under Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, does not override or exclude Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. It does not obviate the necessity to establish by independent evidence, the genuineness of cash credit under Section 68. The presumption is relevant and limited only to summary adjudication contemplated under Section 132(5). Neither more nor less. The ....