TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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. The CIT(A) of NFAC erred in allowing the higher rate of interest to the unsecured loan cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 other branch Cash purchase, Salary, HRA & Other expenses Closing cash on hand Apr 16 25,31,752,46 4,55,23,885,00 4,56,00,000 26,000 13,14,478 11,15,159.46 May 16 11,15,159.46 5,77,03,081.95 5,28,00,000 34,000 32,54,447 27,29,794.41 June....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nto 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 would mean that the assessee has realized 147% of average monthly sales of Rs. 6.50 Crores within that period of 1/3rd of the month (01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016) which could not be accepted. Secondly, the pattern of cash deposit would show that the assessee has the habit of depositing 90% to 95% of the regular cash sales into the bank accounts immediately and cash holding capacity was very less. However, during 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016, the assessee has shown closing cash-in-hand of Rs. 9.59 Crores whereas closin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 details with supporting documents and necessary evidences. Complete purchase details, sales details, stock summary and cash summary were submitted which has been accepted by Ld. AO. Reliance was placed on various judicial decisions to support the submissions. The detailed submissions of the assessee have already been extracted in the impugned order. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with aforesaid submissions of the assessee and observed that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts in regular course of business whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re 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 made by Ld. AO u/s 68 was to be deleted. The Ld. AO did not pointed out any defect in purchases and the accounts were audited u/s 44AB. Therefore, Ld. AO erred in doubting the source of cash when the assessee successfully explained that the source of cash deposited in the bank account was out of sales proceeds. Drawing strength from this decision, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned additions. 8. The disallowance of excessive interest disallowance was deleted on the ground that the assessee would always need the funds to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 the assessee's own unaccounted money was introduced and accommodated under bogus customers' name during the demonetization period. The demand of Ld. AO to produce CCTV recording after lapse of considerable period of time could not be said to be reasonable particularly when all the other evidences supports the case of the assessee. There is no finding by Ld. AO that any particular sales affected by the assessee exceeded threshold limit which would require collection of tax at source (TCS). Since cash generated out of sales has ....