AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15,07,573/- in an appellate order passed dated 13.08.2021 us 250 of the Act. 2(i) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of cash sales to the extent of Rs. 3,25,52.833/-made during the period 1.10.2016 to 8.11.2016 and erroneously held to be unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the approach adopted to assume and hold that some part of the cash sales for the period 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 represent unexplained cash credits is illegal, invalid and untenable. (iii) That while making the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary. wholly unjustified and therefore, unsustainable (iv) That the entire addition is based on whimsical assumptions, arbitrary inferences and overlooks the factual position on record and therefore, the same is invalid, illegal and hence unsustainable.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conveyance expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,54,671/- being expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the appellant company. (ii) That the aforesaid disallowance has been confirmed without adjudicating the same and without giving any findings on its merits which is not a valid course of action in law. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of car running & maintenance expenses to the extent of Rs. 4,04,656/- being expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the appellant company. 5 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 72,000 out of salary paid to the following persons: Sr. No. Name of Director Salary (i) Deepak Jain 25,000 (ii) Ravi Aggarwal 23,000 (iii) Parvinder Kaur 24,000 Total 72,000 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 7,920/- representing expenditure incurred on mobile phone on acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld to be unexplained credit u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] 5. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is into the business of trading and manufacturing of jewelry like gold and diamond, etc. Return for the year was electronically filed on 30.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 15,07,573/-. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to provide month-wise comparative chart of cash/credit sales of current year and previous two years. 8. Details sought by the Assessing Officer were furnished and on perusal of the same, the Assessing Officer observed that in F.Ys. 2014- 15 and 2015-16, cash sales in comparison to total sale was less than 5%, which, in F.Y. 2016-17, increased to 10% on total sale of the year. The assessee was asked to justify the increase. 09. The Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 66,430 10,93,433 vi) September' 2016 10,93,433 --- 50,000 ---- 84,595 9,58,838 vii) October' 2016 9,59,838 3,38,11,665 39,80,150 ---- 2,44,635 3,04,45,718 viii) November' 2016 3,04,45,718 1,35,46,934 4,40,00,000 57,000 53,460 96,192 ix) December' 2016 96,192 ---- ---- 50,000 896 1,45,296 x) January' 2017 1,45,296 1,89,150 ---- ---- 21,100 3,13,346 xi) February' 2017 3,13,346 ---- ---- ---- 32,745 2,80,601 xii) March' 2017 2,80,601 7,64,806 5,50,130 ---- 1,50,070 3,45,207 Total 5,00,27,918 16. Break-up of total sales is as under: Sr. No. Month wise Credit Sales Cash Sales Total (Rs.) i) April' 2016 2,36,07,083 ---- 2,36,07,083 ii) May' 2016 5,83,57,443 14,73,478 5,98,30,921 iii) June' 2016 93,00,247 ---- 93,00,247 iv) July' 2016 29,81,612 ---- 29,81,612 v) August' 2016 41,99,099 2,41,885 44,40,984 vi) September' 2016 3,32,19,407 --- 3,32,19,4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.12.2016, a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee company and not a single defect/discrepancy was found in the physical stock vis a vis book stock of the assessee. 21. If the allegation of the Assessing Officer is accepted that the assessee has inflated its sales during 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016, then there has to be some discrepancy in the book stock vis a vis physical stock, but no such discrepancy was found because no such sales were inflated by the assessee. 22. Merely because there was a minor variation in the cash sales during the alleged period compared to previous year would not mean that the assessee has inflated its sales to cover up demonetized currency. 23. During the year under consideration, diwali was on 31.10.2016 and it is common knowledge that in our society, festival runs 15 days after diwali and it is also a common fact that once the demonization was declared by the Hon'ble Prime Minister, there was frenzy in the market and people were purchasing goods they never intended to purchase just to get rid of demonetized currency. 24. For the sake of repetition, the assessee had furnished month-wis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpenses. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of depreciation claimed en car under Income tax of Rs. 2,52,360/- and car running expenses of Rs. 2,09,747/ 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 28,13,95,024/- on account of unaccounted stock due to difference in valuation of closing stock. 6. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend any/all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." 33. The underlying facts in the issue raised vide Ground No 2 are identical to facts considered by us in assessee's appeal hereinabove in ITA No. 1426/DEL/2021 qua Ground No. 2 with all its sub grounds. For our detailed discussion therein, this ground is dismissed. 34. Next ground relates to deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,62,347/- on account of business promotion. 35. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed business promotion expenses of Rs. 1,62,347/-. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that such expenses were not necessary and ad....