TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has merely submitted a list of names and amount without any documentary evidence. The CIT(A) erred in failing to take note of the categorical observation of the AO in Para 4.5.2 of the Assessment Order that in view of the above observation of the Auditor, it is evident that only transactions in Crypto Currency carried out through Zebpay have been audited and no audited of contract notes in respect of transactions claimed to have been carried out by the assessee through other local traders/platform have been audited by the auditor. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- on account of loan taken from Maryan Godil by only making a cryptic passing remark on the 'loan availed' on Page No.42 &43 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) in his order has not verified/discussed this issue while arriving at his conclusion which is in stark contrast to the findings of the AO in Para 4.5.3 of the assessment order wherein the AO has given a categorical finding that even though the assessee has also contended that the loan amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- has already been considered in total credits in bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2022. The assessee did not file ROI in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act till date. 3.1 The AO made following observations: i) Despite repeated opportunities given to the assessee to file related evidences of source of purchase/investment in Bitcoins from Zebpay and other local traders/platform, the assessee simply reiterated his modus operandi. On perusal of the reply it was not clear as to from whom i.e. the family members/other parties the assessee got the funds in his bank account for trading in Bitcoins in respect of particular credits in his bank account and to whom he returned the funds back in case of cancellation of particular transactions. ii) It was evident that only transactions in Crypto Currency carried out through Zebpay had been audited and no audit of contract notes in respect of transactions claimed to have been carried out by assesse through other local traders/platform have been audited by the auditor. Thus, purchases from ZebPay to the extent of Rs. 1,93,93,490/- were only substantiated. The assessee failed to give any data with regard to the purported local traders and how the amount was tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oins, loan availed, funds taken from family members/parties for purchase of Bitcoins and funds returned back etc. and the AO should have sufficient time to verify the evidences given by the assessee. At the end to the assessment proceedings, the assessee had put forth various submissions without any documentary evidences, hence the same was not acceptable. In view of above discussion and failure on the part of assessee to furnish the required evidences of transactions undertaken in Bitcoins and loan availed despite giving repeated opportunities till date and hearing via Video conferencing, the inference was drawn that the assessee was persistently intransigent in not fully complying with these notices and additions were made to the total income. 4. In the subsequent appeal, before the ld.CIT(A) the assessee made various contentions as below: i) Addition of Rs. 6,96,07,010/- In the course of appellate proceedings before him, it was submitted that the assessee was into the trading of crypto-currency and the modus operandi of his business was as below: (a) Buy from local traders/platform on credit and sell to Zebpay and after selling make payment to local traders after deducting a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 6,96,07,010/- [Rs.8,90,00,500/- (-) Rs. 1,93,93,490/-] remained unsubstantiated and proceeded to make addition of Rs. 6,96,07,010/-. It is re-iterated that with regards to the difference of amount of Rs. 5,85,99,387/- as pointed out in the show-cause notice, it was submitted that the assesse has not done any other business apart from trading in crypto currency and the turnover in the audit report is matching with Zebpay Account statement of the assessee. The credits of Rs. 5,85,99,387/- pertained to purchase and sale transactions pertaining to Zebpay account statement of other concerns wherein it can be inferred that the bank account of the assessee was used for the said transactions and wherein assessee had only earned commission income. v) This was evident from the fact that in the Axis Bank account, there were various credits and debits at regular intervals and the same fund were rotated for trading in crypto currency. The total credits in the axis bank statement amounts to Rs. 14,93,09,827/- and total debits amounts to Rs. 14,92,59,110/-. It is submitted that it is a well settled law that only real income can be taxed and not notional income and on the said transactions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jismail Godil, Ashanurup creations Pvt. Ltd., Prachi fashion Pvt. Ltd. and Matashree Prints Pvt. Ltd. on a regular basis in Axis bank. The total credits of Rs. 5,85,99,387/- (inclusive of Rs. 2,76,02,000/-) was thus explained. 5) In view of the facts of the case at hand and the discussion above, these grounds of appeal were, accordingly, allowed and the addition made by the AO on this account is, hereby, deleted. 5. Before us, the ld.DR vehemently argued that the ld.CIT( A) deleted the additions made without taking into account specific observations and findings of the AO in respect of all the ground of appeal which mainly emphasized that relevant details were not submitted despite adequate opportunity of hearing. 6. The ld.AR, on the other hand, repeated the same contentions as made during proceedings before the lower authorities inter alia submitting that the assessee filed detailed reply. Even after filing detailed submissions in the course of assessment proceedings, the AO was not satisfied and he made addition of Rs. 6,96,07,010/- as per the findings given at Para no. 4.6.1 of the assessment order. The assessee filed detailed written submissions before Ld. CIT(A) who was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... names of local dealers and amount of purchases made from them. Besides, the assessee admitted that such local transactions were not audited which was restricted to purchase from Zebpay only. Despite such glaring omissions on the part of the assessee in this regard and its failure to furnish relevant details even during appeal proceedings, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the substantial part of the purchases without bringing on sufficient evidence on record. It is also incomprehensible as to why the audit was restricted to only a part of the purchases and not the entire purchases including local purchases. 7.2 Likewise the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs 1.30 cr which was added as unexplained cash credit in the absence of even primary details to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lender as also the genuineness of the said transaction. The AO did call for such details which were not submitted. Even then the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition without any justification. The revenue has rightly pointed out that the CIT(A) in his order has not verified/discussed this issue while arriving at his conclusion which is in stark contrast to the findings of t....