2024 (8) TMI 1501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as under:- "Cash deposited during demonetization for sum of Rs. 14,93,000/- not allowed as sales of the appellant by the CIT(A)." 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/assessee, Proprietor of Fab Look, engaged in business of the trading of fabrics, filed her Income Tax Return (In short, the 'ITR') declaring income of Rs. 3,95,190/- on 31.08.2018. The case was picked up for scrutiny on the reasoning that the appellant/assessee had deposited substantial cash during the demonetization period. The consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs. 56,25,690/- vide order dated 07.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, the 'Act'). The Assessing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ravinder Kumar Vs. ITO 273 Taxman 369 (Delhi) has held as under:- .............................................. In absence of any documentary evidences to substantiate the sources of cash deposits during the demonetization period no relief can be granted to the appellant on this issue. The addition of Rs. 14,93,000/- is upheld. To sum up the addition of Rs. 52,30,500/- is restricted to Rs. 14,93,000/-." 4. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the following tabular data (Numerals are in Rupees):- A.Y. Gross Turnover Cash balance Income from Business Income from Other Sources Total Income as per the ITR 2015-16 61,18,268/- 12,450/- 5,10,267....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....utiny and complete scrutiny it was contended that the case was selected for limited scrutiny; however, it was converted to full scrutiny without approval of the PCIT. Hence, the additions need to be knocked off treating the assessment order as void ab initio. Reliance was placed on the decision of Late Smt. Gurbachan Kaur ITA no. 692/JP/2019. 5. The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to the finding of the CIT (A) and submitted that the appellant/assessee did not produce any corroboratory evidence to justify the cash deposits during the demonetization period and hence it was prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the material available on the record. We are of the considered view that the....