TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/-. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the cash deposits under section 68 without bringing any tangible evidence that cash deposit is not from books. The addition u/s 68 can be made only for credit entries from the books of account. 4. The learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the quantum of sales claimed by the Appellant was also supported purchases, stock, VAT Return, audit report etc. 5. The order of the learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT (Appeals) is purely based on surmises and conjectures without any logical reasoning. 6. That the Learned CIT Appeal has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- deposited under PMGKY scheme claimed by appellant as deduction. 7. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, proprietor of M/s Bacche Lal Chain and Jewellers, engaged in wholesale and retail business of gold, silver, bullions, ornaments and allied products, filed his return of income on 7.11.2017 declaring a total i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dited by Chartered Accountant. It was submitted that the sale of the assessee for the period April to September for the assessment year under consideration has increased to Rs.6,16,97,627/- as compared to Rs.3,74,67,689/- of the same period in the preceding assessment year. In October due to Deepawali festival, the sale in the assessment year under consideration has increased to Rs.3,13,34,752/- as compared to the previous year of Rs.1,11,27,598/- and the cash sale out of this amount is Rs.1,90,69,418/-, which is about 60.85% only, the details of which can be evidenced from the month-wise details of Sales/Gross Receipts of the assessee appearing at page 19 of the paper book. He also submitted that in succeeding months from December to March, 2017, the sale has increased substantially in comparison to the preceding year and the total sale during the financial year 2016-17 was 3.21 times of total sales made in the preceding year. From this, it is amply clear that the increase in sales is not only in the month of October but also the succeeding months. There could not be any cause for the uniform sales on all the days, months, or years. There might be diverse reasons behind fluctuatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT, 161 taxmann.com 481. 15.Prashant Pitti vs. ACIT, ITA No.3032/DEL/2022 [ITAT Delhi Bench]. 16.Smt. Sarika Jain vs. CIT, [2017] 84 taxmann.com 64. 17.Sunny Kapoor vs. ITO [2022] 142 taxmann.com 577. 18.Sita Ram Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.23/LKW/2022 [ITAT Lucknow Bench]. 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has contended that the assessee failed to explain and substantiate the credits in the Bank accounts of the assessee and that therefore, the action of the authorities below is justified and no interference is called for in their orders. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact during the period from 9 to 30th of November, 2016, the assessee, during the demonetization period, had deposited an amount of total sum of Rs.1,95,00,000/- in his bank account (Rs.1,50,00,000/- in account No.200013785541 with Indusind Bank and Rs.45,00,000/- in account No.001863400000627 with Yes Bank). The assessee is engaged in wholesale and retail business of gold, silver, bullions, ornaments and allied products, for which, Sale Register, Ledger, Cash book, Stock Register, Purchase bills, etc., are being maintained and the same were produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onetization. 8. We, for the sake of convenience, reproduce below section 68 of the I.T. Act: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year:" 9. As per section 68 of the Act, the sum found to have been credited in the books of account, for which, the assessee offers no explanation, is deemed to be the income of the assessee, whereas in the instant case, the assessee had duly explained the source of sales, produced the sale bills and had admitted the same as revenue receipt. Once there is no defect in the purchases and sales and the same are matching with the inflow and the outflow of stock and cash, there is no reason to disbelieve the sales. The Assessing Officer had examined the requisite details furnished by the assessee and did not point out any mistake therein. The Assessing Officer had not doubted the Sales made by the Assessee, which sales stand dul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales were duly accounted for in the books of account. Therefore, the addition of Rs.19,10,000/- made under section 68 of the I. T. Act is not justifiable, as the amount was available with the assessee as opening balance of cash-in-hand as per cash book and cash received from the sales. Since these were Revenue Receipts, the same had also been offered to tax and due taxes had already been paid. The Assessing Officer had randomly made the addition, without pinpointing any abnormality therein. As such, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, I delete the same and allow Ground no.1 taken by the assessee." 12. In the case of Anantpur Kalpana vs. ITO (supra), on a similar issue, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal deleted the addition, observing as under: "9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Both the AO and CIT(A) accepted the fact that the cash receipts are nothing but sale proceeds in the business of the assessee. The addition has been made only on the basis that after demonetization, the demonetized notes could not have been accepted as valid tender. Since the sale proceeds for ....