TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi noted that Ld. AO has failed to provided any basis for considering 35% of the cash deposit as unexplained cash credits which is in contradiction to the analysis made by the Assessing Officer in the form of Trend Analysis which has clearly been elaborated in Para No. 8.1 to Para No. 8.6 and Para No. 9 of the Assessment Order and therefore, it is clear that Ld. CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi has grossly failed to appreciate the fact that the addition has duly been made on the basis of delayed examination of the information and documents on record 2. Further, Ld. CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi has contended that the Assessing Officer has no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s)/National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi has quashed the assessment order with remarks that Assessing Officer has failed to issue Show Cause Notice to the assessee and the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the purpose of Show Cause Notice is to grant a final opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in this case multiple opportunities were already provided to the assessee in the form of statutory notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, it had clearly been mentioned in the Notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 dated 28.09.2019 issued vide DIN No. ITBA/ AST/F/ 142(1)/ 2019-20/ 1018419983(1), Assessing Officer has clearly mentioned that the abovementioned notice under referenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. We find Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issues in dispute elaborately by observing as under:- "5.1 In the underline case the Id. AO has carried out three additions amounting to Rs. 2,79,33,700/-. Aggrieved by the Ld. AO the appellant has filed an appeal with multiple grounds. On perusal of grounds, it has observed that the appellant has objected on the way the assessment proceedings were conducted, in this regard the appellant has raised specific grounds along with other grounds pertaining to additions ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided any specific findings that a particular sales entry appearing in the books of account of the appellant is not an actual sale but unexplained cash credit. This clearly indicate that the Ld. AO has presumed certain portion of cash deposited as unexplained cash credit. On perusal of the assessment order, it is also noted that the total sales of the appellant for year under consideration is in line with past two years sales and therefore treating 35% cash deposits as unexplained cash credit is not justified. 5.8 Further in respect of second addition, the Ld. AO had sent notices to 24 parties and on perusal of chart depicted in the assessment order it is observed that four parties have responded to the assessing officer's notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....robability is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side, and conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and materials and not on the basis of presumption of facts Once nothing has been proved against the appellant with aid of any direct material especially when three rounds of investigation have been carried out, then nothing can be implicated against the appellant. 1. 124 taxmann.com 527 (SC)[20-11-2020] Supreme Court SLP dismissed against impugned order of High Court holding that in absence of supporting evidence, additions based merely on presumption that assessee had earned undisclosed income and incurr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of the assessee is not an actual sale but unexplained cash credit. This clearly indicate that the AO has presumed certain portion of cash deposited as unexplained cash credit. On perusal of the assessment order, it was noted that the total sales of the assessee for year under consideration is in line with past two years sales and therefore treating 35% cash deposits as unexplained cash credit is not justified. Therefore, addition on this account is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence, was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we affirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, the ground no. 1 is rejected. 6.1 Further in respect of second addition, ....