TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as suppressed income on cash sales. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in making an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- even though the said amount is not considered as suppressed income by the AO, thus finding a new source of income which is not permissible under the powers available to the CIT (A) u/s. 250 of the Act. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in making an addition of Rs. 10,00,000-/ as suppressed income from sales on cash basis without any basis or comparable cases and without any material on record to prove that such income is earned by the appellant. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in making an addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent." 3. Firstly, we are taking up the appeal filed by the Revenue. The survey action u/s. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 21-12- 2016 at Axis Bank Memnagar Branch which revealed that Afjalbhai Savjani Sadikali and Tejas C. Desai managed and operated dummy bank accounts with a sole intention to facilitate and unaccounted OHD notes holder to convert either into gold or new currencies. After the survey action of Axis Bank, statement of Afzal Savjani was recorded on 27-12-2016 and on 06-01- 2027 u/s. 131(1A) of the Act. During the course of statement recorded on 27-12-2016, he mentioned some instances from where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer further observed that the CCTV footage was also not working for last 4 months at the time of survey. Taking into account the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,14,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit which is brought into the assessee's books in guise of sales before demonetization period u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition on protective basis to that of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of the cash given to cash handlers during demonetization period which was deposited in the bank account of Raj Enterprises which was subsequently transferred to the Shy Bullion by way of RTGS u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the same was submitted during the assessment period. The CIT(A) therefore has taken the cognizance of the same and held that the purchasers though not identified the sale rates shown in such cash memos, the assessee will get the benefit of the cash deposits where the details of sales were regularly maintained. The ld. A.O. further submitted that the protective addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- was not justifiable as the assessee has not at all received any amount from Shy Bullion and there was no transaction either with Shy Bullion as well as with M/s. Raj Enterprises by the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perusal the relevant materials available on record. As regards the Revenue's appeal, the CIT(A) has given a categori....