TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CIT(A) of NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that even 69A is not applicable where sums are recorded in the books of account , the onus lies on the assessee to submit evidences to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as required u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) of NFAC has erred in allowing the cash sales in demonetized currency as well as the total sales happened on 08/11/2016. The CIT(A) of NFAC has not appreciated the fact that the sales on the 08/11/2016 after the announcement of demonetisation is not backed by any evidence such CCTV footage and party-wise sales details on 08/11/2016, which were called for during scrutiny proceedings and not furnished. 5. The CIT(A) of NFAC failed to understand the fact that the Respondent had left with sufficient time to file the VAT returns for the month of November 2016, which cannot be a conclusive evidence to prove that the actual sales have happened. 6. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing officer based on the additional evidences submitted by the assessee which were not furnished during scrutiny proceedings, for which the CIT(A) has not called for remand report. 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in other branch Cash purchase, Salary, HRA & Other expenses Closing cash on hand Apr 15 11,76.991.06 6,44,95,213 6,21,50,000 3,000 18,49,512.00 16,69,692.06 May 15 16,69,692.06 7,77,09,311 7,29,50,000 2,000 23,01,174.00 41,25,729.06 June 15 41,25,829.06 5,84,94,435 5,71,50,000 7,000 22,90,555.00 27,72,709.06 July 15 27,72,709.06 11,15,66,321 10,71,50,000 7,000 26,56,158.00 45,25,872.06 Aug 15 45,25,872.06 10,03,25,639 10,05,50,000 7,000 24,50,066.60 18,44,444.46 Sept 15 18,44,444.46 5,35,11,407 5,05,50,000 6,000 19,94,700.00 28,05,151.46 Oct 15 28,05,151.46 6,09,12,359 5,94,00,000 8,000 27,82,053.00 15,27,457,46 Nov till 08.11.2015 15,27,457.46 2,32,95,615 1,51,00,000 7,000 16,06,602.00 81,09,470.46 Details of monthwise cash sales and cash deposits from 01.04.20216 to 08.11.2016 Monthwise Opening cash in hand Cash sales, Receipts & Advance Cash deposited in bank Cash withdrawal from bank Cash deposit ed in ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 40,28,372.41 28,94,724 38,00,000 04.11.2016 30,59,150.41 41,50,041 48,60,000 05.11.2016 23,20,810.41 28,75,531 27,50,000 06.11.2016 24,15,029.41 19,90,313 5,000 07.11.2016 43,71,622.41 1,10,36,922 59,50,000 08.11.2016 93,55,923.41 6,68,88,884 The source of cash deposited by the assessee was summarized as under: - Monthwise Opening cash in hand Total cash received from customer Cash deposited into Demonetized currency other currency Demonetized currency 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 7,62,44,807.41 95,000 1,78,19,419.34 7,63,00,000 (Cash deposited on 9.11.2016) 1,27,06,500 3.4 Considering the above data, Ld. AO proceeded to verify the genuineness of the assessee's claim that closing cash-in-hand as on 08.11.2016 was Rs. 762.44 Lacs. After examination of assessee's reply, Ld. AO observed that the assessee's monthly sale never exceeded on an average of Rs. 6.5 Crores from April 2016 to Oct 2016. However, in the month of Nov., 2016 i.e., during 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016, the assessee have shown the cash sales of Rs. 9.59 Crores which woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t apply since no single bill for sale of jewellery exceeds prescribed threshold of Rs. 5 Lacs. The assessee reiterated that there was huge rush of customer post announcement of demonetization. The entire sales made were reported to Sale Tax Department which has been accepted. The assessee maintained day-to-day stock register. Once particular sale has already been offered for taxation, the same could not be again considered for additional tax at higher rate since the same would amount to double taxation. The assessee also submitted that books of accounts were subjected to audit and accepted by Ld. AO. The assessee also assailed invocation of provisions of Sec.69A since AO neither rejected books of accounts nor doubted stock / purchases shown in the books. The cash- in-hand entries in the books could not be added again as undisclosed income u/s 69A. The assessee was having sufficient stock and the same was duly accounted for in the books of accounts. The entire sales were made from regular stock-in-hand and therefore, sales could not be doubted. The trading stock was sold, cash was received and the same was deposited in the bank accounts. The assessee furnished all the requisite deta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O were held to be bereft of any such evidence. The test of human probability could not be applied in the case since it was known fact that there was huge rush in jewellery shops and hence, huge cash sales made by the assessee on 08.11.2016 could not be doubted. The assessee brought on record increased sales on some auspicious days like Navratri, Diwali and Akshaya Tritiya. In the same way, increased sales could happen on demonetization as it was unique situation and there was a demand. There was no whisper in the entire impugned Assessment Order pointing out any discrepancy in stock and cash book. The appellant's books show sales with the bills and outgo of stocks. The sales were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and there were no abnormal profits. Accordingly, the plea of the assessee was to be accepted and the same was supported by various decisions of Tribunal. 7. In the case of M/s Heera Panna Jewellers (ITA N.253/viz/2020 dated 12.05.2021) as decided by Visakhapatnam Tribunal, it was held that when the assessee had explained the source of impugned amount as sales and produced sales bills and admitted revenue receipts which were offered to tax, the addition so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO in the books or financial statement of the assessee. When the sales has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same would amount to double taxation which is impermissible in law. The books are subjected to Tax Audit u/s 44AB and the assessee has maintained quantitative details of the stock-in-trade. The cash sales proceeds have been credited in the books of accounts and the same form part of assessee's cash book. On these facts, it could very well be said that the assessee's claim was backed up by sufficient documentary evidences. The allegation of Ld. AO is that such abnormal sales could not be achieved by the assessee immediately upon announcement of demonetization by the Government. However, such allegations are bereft of any concrete evidence on record. It is trite law that no addition could be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. In the present case, the assessee has duly discharged the burden of establishing the source of cash deposit and the onus was on Ld. AO to disprove the same. However, except for mere allegation and few statistics, there is nothing on record to support the conclusions drawn by Ld. AO that t....