TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid amount Rs. 1,01,54,618/-. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid assessment order in the office of the learned CIT(A). Vide the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 23/09/2020 of the learned CIT(A), the aforesaid addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act was deleted. The learned CIT(A) took the view that no adverse view could be taken merely on the fact that the aforesaid deposits representing cash sales of the assessee were made in the bank account in a staggered manner. The learned CIT(A) was of the view that there could be numerous reasons for staggered deposits and security was one of the major concerns. The learned CIT(A) further stated that in many cases even banks advised for staggered deposits. Besides, the learned CIT(A) observed that demonetization was announced on 08/11/2016 and the appellant deposited last tranche of demonetized currency in the bank on 21/11/2016 i.e. just after few days. (A.1) As regards the aforesaid addition of Rs. 1,01,54,618/- to the gross profit disclosed by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) scaled down the estimated addition from Rs. 1,01,54,618/- to Rs. 10,20,693/- and the remaining addition was deleted by him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of treatment and there might be various situations when operation could not be conducted - Assessing Officer was not satisfied with reply of assessee and rejected books of account of assessee and made certain addition - It was observed that Assessing Officer assumed certain facts regarding operation of some patients who were referred for lab test; however, Assessing Officer had not brought any material on record to show whether actually any patient had undergone surgery without recording same in records of assessee - Whether since addition had been made by Assessing Officer merely on assumption of certain facts without any basis and no specific defects had been pointed out in maintenance of books of account, rejection of books of account was not justified - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee] 3. Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh (Third Member) in case of ACIT vs. Shiv Metal & Engg. Works in [1998] 66 ITD 71 (CHD.) (TM) Headnote Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessing Officer made addition on assumption that there was diversion of profit by way of understated sale of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant maintains proper books of accounts in due course of business which are audited by chartered accountant and no anomaly were found therein by the Ld. Assessing Officer. In this regard it is submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer had at several places mentioned in the assessment order that the appellant made sale of high valued items like gold bullion/ jewellery although appellant is involved in sale of silver bullion/ ornaments only and cause of this, it seems he had also assumed that the appellant was involved in sale till Mid Night of 08.11.2016 post 08:00 PM, i.e. after announcement of demonetization by Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. The fact is that the last sale in cash in pre-demonetization period was made by the appellant on 04.11.2016 i.e. 4 days prior to the announcement of demonetization on 08.11.2016. To substantiate the said facts, copy of cash book for the period 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 is enclosed. So, it would be completely wrong to even assume that the appellant earned higher rate of G.P. than what is recorded in the audited books of accounts. The comparison of G.P. Rate of year under consideration with earlier years is as follows: Particular....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce and hence came to conclusion that there was under billing - Revenue further suggested addition by application of Gross Profit rate of 4.465 percent Commissioner (Appeals) asked revenue to furnish G.P. rate - Revenue stated that returns of income for relevant assessment year were not made available by Central Record Room - Commissioner (Appeals) computed gross profit rate of 12.5 per cent with reference to returns of subsequent assessment years - Whether return of subsequent assessment years could not be taken into account for computing gross profit rate - Held, yes - Whether thus, finding with regard to gross profit rate was based on surmises and conjectures - Held, yes [Para 11||In favour of assessee] (3) Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in case of Pyarelal Mittal vs. ACIT in [2007] 291 ITR 214 (GAU). Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts Where assessee carried on business of stock and share broker ship and Assessing Officer did not find any fault with books of account and method of accounting employed by assessee nor had there been suppression of any material fact which deterred him from computing act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basis of the past history. The Tribunal, referring to the gross profit rate applied and accepted by the Department in the earlier years, held that the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) was justified in reducing the addition by applying the gross profit rate of 22 percent. as per the past history of hecase. Relevant findings are contained in Para 9 of the order, which reads as under: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In our view, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the application of gross profit rate of 22 per cent instead of application of net profit rate for which there was no basis. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are pure findings of facts. What should be the gross profit rate in a given case does not give rise to any legal issue. We are, therefore, satisfied that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal for consideration by this court." (6) Smt. Chanda Devi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been taken. However, in effect, there are two disputes to be decided. The first dispute is regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- under section 68 of the I. T. Act. On this issue in dispute, the learned D.R. for Revenue relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. He drew our attention to the fact recorded in the assessment order, that the deposits were not made in one go, but in parts. However, he failed to state how the reasoning of the learned CIT(A), already summarized in foregoing paragraph (A) of this order, was incorrect. Learned A.R. for the assessee submitted at the time of hearing that the aforesaid amount was deposited in bank in demonetized currency within a short period i.e. a few days from the date of announcement of demonetization on 08/11/2016. She further submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- represented cash balance in the books of the assessee arising mainly as a result of cash sales. She contended that cash sales is a common and well known practice in this line of business. She also submitted that the assessee had sufficient stock in trade in hand to effect the aforesaid sales of Rs. 1,22,00,000/-. She contended that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Roop Fashion reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 216 (Chandigarh - Trib.) 3. Photocopy of judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2023] 151 taxmann.com 339 (Jaipur - Trib.) 4. Photocopy of judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Chandra Surana reported in [2023] 149 taxmann.com 379 (Jaipur - Trib.) 5. Photocopy of judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow in the case of Pradeep Kumar vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax vide ITA No.198/LKW/2024 dated 04.09.2024 6. Photocopy of judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Agson Global (P.) Ltd. reported in for AY 2017-18 [2022] 134 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi) 7. Photocopy of judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Zohra Emporium reported in [2015] 59 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi) 8. Photocopy of judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of DCIT v. Kortek Electronics (India) Ltd. reported in [2023] 156 taxmann.com 52 (Delhi - Trib.)....