2025 (5) TMI 1850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in making an addition of Rs. 11,83,000/- u/s.69B of the Act. 2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not appreciating that the demand has been issued in the present case after invoking the provisions of S.115BBE of the Act without there being any specific direction/satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to that effect in the Assessment Order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t inspire confidence in the explanation given that the withdrawals from bank account are the source of deposits made in demonetization period. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the sales and purchases being in cash were not supported by proper documentation i.e. sale & purchase bills. Therefore, the books of accounts maintained as claimed and the statements of accounts produced were not reliable for computing the income assessable and hence the Ld. CIT(A) held that the books of accounts are rejected in terms of Sec 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the withdrawals from the bank account have not been organized and presented in a fashion for corelating the withdrawals with the deposits. Since, the cash book claimed to be maintaine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... report confirms no discrepancy in sales figures or cash balance. In view of above, the Ld. AR submitted before the Revenue Authorities that the amount of sales could not have been added u/s 69B of the Act, for which he has placed reliance on the following judgements: (i) CIT Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd (Tax Appeal No.2471 of 2009) (ii) Nitisha Silk Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (ITA No. 896/Ahd/2011) (iii) ITO Vs. Jethu Ram Prem Chand [2001] 114 Taxman 291 (Del) (iv) Harish Kumar Vs., DCIT [2003] 85 ITD 366 (Hyd.) 8. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record on this issued. 9. We find that, as per the financial statements available before the Revenue Auth....