TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ash sales of AY 2017-18 from AY 2016-17 and AY 2018- 19. 3.Whether the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in concluding that AO did not bring any material on record against assessee in respect of cash sales which was deposited by the assessee in the bank, when assessee itself did not cooperate during the course of assessment and failed to give complete reply during the course of assessment proceedings. 4.Whether Ld. CIT (A) has erred in concluding that books of accounts was accepted by the AO, when assessing officer specifically mentioned in the assessment order that month wise cash sales figures is more than the other FYs and the san same are concentrated exactly before the demonetization period [01.10.2016 to 8.11.2016]. 5.The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessee to produce/adduce additional evidence under rule 46A when none of the conditions laid down in clause (a), (b), (c), or (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 46A were satisfied." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee being proprietor of M/s Patil Enterprises, carrying out business of trading gold, silver, Kundan and diamond jewelleries/articles filed his ITR for Assessment Year 2017-18 declari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TA 1600/Mum/2023, dt. 26.07.2023. g. DCIT Vs. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., ITA 352/Del/2021, dt. 09.06.2023. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, A.O. noticed that there were no cash sales from April 2016 to September 2016 and negligible cash sales of Rs. 32,69,602/- in the period from 09/11/2016 to 31/03/2017. Similarly observed that there were negligible cash sales during the complete Financial Year relevant to Assessment Year 2016-17 and 2018-19 in the corresponding period. Therefore, the A.O. show caused the Assessee as to 'why the amounts so deposited during the demonization period in the bank accounts should not be added' in his income u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessee submitted reply on 18/12/2019 to the queries of the A.O. The copy of the reply of the Assessee is reproduced as under:- "4. That the assessee had received the amount in cash from the various sundry parties for the amount of Rs. 4,65,04,106/- during 01.10.2016 to 31.10.2016 and Rs. 4,75,18,653/- during 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2017 on different dates on Delhi Head office and same Rs. 30,58,590/- &Rs. 24,40,416/- on Rohtak Br....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2016 Dushhera and Diwali was in October-2016. Therefore the sale in this year is more than the last year... 12.That reason of non mentioning name and complete address along with PAN on some retail sale invoices is not merely reason to assume that these was not actual/genuine sale and deemed as bogus or manipulated sale. For Justification of this we would like to inform that as we have already stated above that there was a festival season and due to this volume of customers is more than usual volume of customers and in general practice customer does not want to provide his complete details regarding security and privacy reason on invoices as they are also having knowledge to provisions of act that there was no requirement of PAN and complete detail of purchases made by him with amounting of less than of Rs. 2,00,000/- 13.That after the announcement of demonetization scheme there was lot of events/cases happened in the market for snatching of cash and valuable. Citizens of India were on the road for the purpose of depositing his old currency notes and for withdrawal of new currency from bank account. Therefore citizens were in fear of snatching his valuable mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant were audited u/s 44AB of the Act. The AO added the cash sales amounting to Rs. 9,84,10,877/- under the head "income from other sources" without rejecting the books of account of the appellant which lead to double taxation. The simlar issue was decided upon by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. [IT Appeal No.2471 of 2009, dated 03.07.2012] wherein it was held as under: ........5. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not address the question of correctness of the C.I.T. (Appeals)'s conclusion that amount of Rs. 70 lakhs represented the genuine export sale of the assessee. The Tribunal however, upheld the deletion of Rs. 70 lakhs under section 68 of the Act observing that when the assessee had already offered sales realisation and such income is accepted by the Assessing Officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we are in agreement with the above view of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout disproving the sales with tangible evidence." Similar issue was also decided in the favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble ITAT Indore bench in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Dewas Soya Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 336 (Ind.) of 2012, dated 31-10-2012] wherein on identical facts of the case it was held that the claim of the assessee that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s. 68 of the Act. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. KallashJewellery House in Appeal No. in ITA 613/2010. 10.2.3 In the present case, the AO never raised doubt for the purchase or the stock during the year. Also, the appellant submitted the copies of VAT returns filed by him during the period under consideration in which the sales made by him were reflected. Despite the above facts, the AO added the same cash sales as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 10.2.4 It is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon law doctrine "incumbitprobatio qui dicit non qui negat", i.e. burden lies upon one who alleges and not upon one who deny the existence of the fact. In the instant case, the A.O. did not carry any of his doubts to a logical conclusion by converting them into hard facts on the basis of evidences during the assessment proceedings. I have also also taken note of the fact that the AO was given enough time to conduct relevant enquiries and investigation, during the course of Remand proceedings. However, the AO had failed to carry out the relevant enquiries and investigation during the Assessment as well as Remand Proceeding and without any such enquiry and investigation, the AO declared the cash sales made by the appellant nongenuine. 10.2.7 (a) It is well settled proposition of law that the Court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusions, on of basing its conclusions on suspicions, howsoever strong they may be. It is equally well settled that the Courts decision must rest not upon suspicion but upon legal grounds established by legal testimony. In this regard, the reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Um....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Rs. 102,37,32,242/. As per the unusualy high cash sales during the period from 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 are concerned, the appellant submitted that in the month of October, he had started a newly range of jewellery under the name "Patil's" on the occasion of festive season. Also, on 08.11.2016, the demonetization of notes of denomination 100 & 500 was announced due to which, there was undue rush in the jewellery shops immediately after the announcement and huge cash sales were made. 10.2.9 It is also seen that the AO accepted the cash sales of the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 and from 09.11.2016 to 31.03.2017 and rejected the cash sales only for the period from 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016. This shows that the AO accepted some part of the book of account and rejected some part which is wrong as the same documents cannot be accepted as well as rejected at the same time. 10.3 In view of the above discussion, it is inferred that the cash sales made by the appellant during the period from 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 were genuine. Thus, the addition of Rs. 9,84,10,877/- made by the AO is hereby allowed." 8. It is observed that the books of account of the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8/2025 held as under:- "5.1 Upon careful consideration, we find that on identical facts this Tribunal in the case of Deepak Sharma vs. ACIT (Supra) has held as under: "3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing, Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the purchases declared in the books of account were accepted, there is no basis to treat the sales made out of such purchases as unexplained cash credits taxable under section 68 of the Act. It was further submitted that the cash deposits which has already declared in the return of income as part of total sales and that it amounts to double taxation of the same amount. It was further submitted that even assuming that the additions were warranted under section 68 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts 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 V AT return and also in books of accounts maintained by th....