2023 (1) TMI 1483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") insofar it is against the Appellant, is opposed to the law, weight of evidence, facts, and circumstances of the Appellant's case. ii The order is passed in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard. iii The order is passed against the principle of natural justice and thus liable to be quashed. iv The learned CIT (Appeal) erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 11,66,999/-, even though the appellant furnished evidence in support of his claim. v The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, despite the fact that the appellant duly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the above and sustain Rs. 11,66,994/- which represents the inflated cash sales during 01.10.2016 to 09.11.2016. Against this the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned A.R. submitted that the deposit of amount into the bank account cannot be considered as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Further he submitted that the AO for making the addition considered the sales only for 10 days before the demonetisation period with the average sales of prior three months. According to the learned A.R. the learned AO ought to have considered the average sales of the entire year instead of the average sales of three month to compare the sales in 10 days during the demonetisation period. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e form. Accordingly, I reject this ground of appeal of the assessee. 7. Now coming to the sustaining of addition towards inflated sales, in my opinion, it amounts to double addition as the said amount is considered in the Profit & Loss Account and included in the already declared income of the assessee. In my opinion, there is a merit in this plea of the assessee. This inflated sales, if any, already had gone into the computation of income and making further u/s. 69A of the Act amounts to double addition which shall be avoided. In view of this, I direct the AO to exclude this amount from the income of the assessee. Thereafter, he has to make separate addition of the same amount under Section 69A of the Act provided if the assessee is not....