2025 (5) TMI 2179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,03,83,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act on the basis of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period?" 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 electronically declaring an income of Rs. 74,76,390/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee company was engaged in the business of trading of electronic appliances through various showrooms in Delhi and NCR. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that there were cash deposits to the tune of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the festive season. The said explanation cannot be brushed aside considering the trend of the society in India during the festive season. 9.3 I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. During the appellate proceeding, the appellant had brought out sufficient evidences to prove the source of cash deposits made in the bank account during the period of demonetization. Moreover, there was iota of evidence having any adverse remarks on the purchases shown by the appellate in its books of accounts. After perusal of entire material on records, accordingly addition of Rs. 4,03,83,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits is not found sustainable and, thereby....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and in law in confirming the demand computed in accordance with rate specified in section 115BBE of the Act as amended by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the sales made which were duly disclosed in VAT return and also in books of accounts maintained by the assessee audited and also under section 44AB of the Act, no adverse inference could be drawn in respect of the declared sales by the assessee. We further note that once the purchases declared in the books of accounts were duly accepted then no subjective assumption and presumption could be made a basis to assume, allege and conclude that sales made out of such purchases were unex....