TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions of Rs. 8,00,000 /- on account of cash deposited during the de monetization during the year by recording incorrect facts and making irrelevant observations. Therefore, the additions made as such may be liable to be deleted. 2. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the denial of the (i) documents placed on record, not considering past history of the appellant and confirming the addition on account of cash sales without denying sales and rejecting books of account by the Ld. AO and confirming additions of Rs. 8,00,000/- b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der framed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) and that too without considering the fact that the partial relief is given by the Ld. CIT ( A) on the same grounds and judgment made by the Ld. CIT on amount of relief is having no base; therefore, the additions made as such as per Grounds of Appeals No. 2 may be liable to be deleted. 7. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts, in partially confirming the action of the Ld. AO in spite of the fact that the Ld. AO has simply made the addition only on the basis mala fide intention and without rejecting sales and books of accounts. 8. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-(A) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accounts of the assessee and the authorities have not considered the material available on record. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly sustained the partial addition out of the total addition made by the A.O., which is reasonable, therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal filed by the assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. A.O. while making the addition held that in-spite of showing huge cash deposits during the year under consideration, the assessee has not offered any valid explanation, and the onus of the Assessee to substantiate the source and nature of the cash deposit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n October 2016, cash sales were Rs. 17,60,000 out of which cash of only Rs. 8,00,000 was deposited in the bank account and cash sales from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 were Rs. 25,60,000. Considering past trends of the appellant of regularly depositing cash received in the bank account, unlike in October 2016, it is held that cash sales of Rs. 8,00,000 are unexplained and addition of Rs. 8,00,000 u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of Income Tax Act is hereby confirmed. In view of above facts as well as past trends of the appellant, it is held that balance cash deposited during demonetization period of Rs. 30,00,000 stands explained. Hence, Ground Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the appeal are partly allowed." 7. The Ld. CIT ....