TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act on 30.12.2019. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is erroneous in law and opposed to facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. 3. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have seen that addition under section 69A rws 115BBE can be made only when the ingredients of section 69A are cumulatively satisfied. In the instant case the explanation offered by the appellant is supported by documentary evidence. The Department cannot by merely rejecting a good explanation unreasonably, convert good proof into no proof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if the cash sales of each transaction Rs. 2 lakhs and in the instant case none of the transactions have crossed Rs. 2 lakhs. 8. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 9,06,599/- made by the assessing officer by invoking section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The said disallowance is wrong both on law and on facts. As is evident two issues fall for our consideration i.e., (i) Addition u/s 69A; (ii) Interest disallowance. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee which has been controverted by Ld. Sr. DR. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being resident individual is stated to be engaged in trading of Gold Bullion in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om cash sales were made on 08.11.2016. The assessee submitted that due to announcement of demonetization by Government of India, there was huge demand for investment in gold and due to rush, the assessee failed to collect the identity of the person to whom sales were made on 08.11.2016. However, not convinced, Ld. AO held that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 185 Lacs was unexplained money u/s 69A and assessable to tax at special rates u/s 115BBE. 3.4 The Ld. AO also disallowed interest expenditure in view of the fact that the assessee claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 26.46 Lacs whereas the assessee granted loan of Rs. 70.15 Lacs to her son Shri Praveen Kumar Mundhra where no interest receipts were accounted. The Ld. AO computed proportionat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also submitted to Ld. AO. The purchases were evidenced by purchase bills and the stock was sold and all the sales were duly reported in VAT returns. However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the additions. 4.2 On the issue of interest disallowance, it was submitted that the loan was given in March, 2017 only and the assessee had sufficient credit balance in her capital account to extend interest-free loan to her son. The assessee also submitted ledger to show that it had received funds of Rs. 7.25 Lacs from her son and she repaid amount of Rs. 77.40 Lacs on various occasions leaving closing balance of Rs. 70.15 Lacs. The excess funds advanced were out of own funds and not out of borrowed loans. However, Ld. CIT(A) merely confirmed the disallo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oks of the assessee. 6. We are of the considered opinion that when the sale has been reflected in the books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same again would amount to double taxation which is impermissible in law. 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 ....