2025 (10) TMI 1152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The issue before us is that the assessee also challenged the addition of Rs. 7,46,500, but the finding of the ld. CIT(A) was with respect to the addition of only Rs. 4 lakhs. 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is engaged in the business of dealer in fish, filed his return of income on 26.3.2018. The return of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. The AO noted that assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 9,51,000 during the demonetisation period out of which Rs. 9,09,500 is in the demonetised currency. The assessee submitted his cash book showing the closing balance and opening balance during this period. As the ld. AO found that assessee has opening balance as on 8.11.2016 of Rs. 2,36,184, he proposed to make the addit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee is in appeal before me. The ld. AR referred to the paperbook filed of 155 pages and also relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench in ITA No.684/Bang/2023 in the case of Aura Jewels dated 24.2.2025 and also in the case of Shri Raju Rajesh in ITA No.2006/Bang/2024 dated 19.12.2024. The ld. AR submits that the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee is out of the sale proceeds which has not been believed by the AO. Further the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of inflated cost of assets and also disallowance of depreciation thereon is devoid of any merit. He stated that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without considering even the grounds of appeal and therefore is not sustainable. 7. The ld DR supported the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts produced before the AO could not be discarded. Accordingly the above sum could not be treated as unaccounted income of the assessee. The order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue did not discuss anything, he did not even mention a line about the ground and confirmed the addition. In view of this, the addition made in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 7,46,500 is deleted and the orders of the ld. lower authorities are reversed on this ground. 9. The second issue relates to the addition of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of purchase of lorry and body building expenditure. As the assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs for the body building of the lorry which was received back from Grace Fabrication to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs, it was held to be unac....