TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the assessee was selected under CASS for scrutiny. 2.4 That during the course of the assessment proceedings, due submissions were made by the assessee in response to notice(s) served upon. 2.5 That after due examination of submissions filed by the assessee before AO; the ld. AO concluded the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AO assessed total income at Rs. 104,53,290/-. The ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 98,71,000/-. [30% of Rs. 3,29,07,000/-. Cash deposited during the demonetization period). The assessment order bears No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/102280815(1) dated 21.12.2019 which was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Assessment order". 2.6 The assessee being aggrieved by the 'Impugned Assessment Order' preferred first appeal under Section 246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who by the impugned order has partly al lowed the appeal of the assessee on substantial issue of addition. 2.7 In the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has held as follows : "5.3 I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the appellant and material available on record and various case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions u/s 69A of the IT Act. Before proceedings further, let us take a look at the provisions of section 69A of the IT. Act. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. From plain reading of the above provision it is clear that section 69A is applicable, when assessee is found to be owner of any money, bullion, jewellery and the same has not been recorded in the books of account. Since the appellant has already recorded the said cash deposits in his books of account, adding the same again u/s 69A lead to double taxations which is incorrect. Reliance is pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim of the assessee by setting aside the findings of the AO and deleting the addition of Rs. 98,72,100/-. 3. That the Ld. C1T(A) has wrongly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 98,72,100/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same remained unexplained during the assessment proceedings. 4. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in deleting the addition merely on the technical ground that the addition was made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without going into the merits of the case that the assessee had shown abnormally high cash sales in the month of November especially on the night of 08.11.2016 just before demonetization. 5. It is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be revoked and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 6. The appellate craves to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above at the time of hearing." 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 18.12.2024 when ld. DR appeared for and on behalf of the Revenue and ld. AR appeared for and on behalf of the assessee. Both of them were heard on merits of the case and their submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of cash sale bills were below Rs. 2 lakh but it is highly unlikely that not even a single cash sale above Rs. 2 lakh has been actually made by the assessee. The ld. AO finally concluded by placing reliance on ld. AO order which according to him was just, proper and fair. It was a well reasoned and speaking order which not only has analyzed cash statement of assessee's bank for both years i.e. Financial Year 2015-16 but Financial Year 2016-17 also. This cash deposit was compared with sale bills. The ld. AO has considered in the impugned assessment order surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderances of possibilities as litmus test for lifting the veil from a sham/make belief theory. The ld. AO in the impugned assessment order has rightly placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT Vs Durga Prasad More (214 ITR 801), Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995 AIR 2109), McDowell & Co. Ltd. Vs CTO 1986 AIR 649. Basis these judgements, the ld. AO has rightly held that keeping factual aspect of the case, it is concluded on basis of peculiar facts and circumstances and preponderance of probabilities that the explanation furnished by the assessee as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transaction sheet-2016 [pages 55 and 56 of Paper Book], copy of cash ledger for 01.04.2016 to 31.12.2016, copy of Audit Report, audited balance sheet, P&L Account etc. We observe that these documents are expressly not rejected by the ld. AO while computing the income of the assessee. In the absence of rejection of these documents we are of the considered view no addition ought to have made by ld. AO and CIT(A) has rightly held in the impugned order that ld. AO has accepted the purchases and stock of the assessee. Ld. AO has not pointed out any discrepancy in the Stock Register of the assessee. There is no finding/any documentary evidence to show that the purchases were exaggerated or the sales were manipulated. The ld. AO has placed a theory without any proof. The AO has not made any enquiry on the material supplied by the assessee. AO has not brought out any evidence to show that the sale bills are all bogus. AO has not rejected any books of account as AO was not having any contrary material to reject the books of account. AO has not said cash deposited in bank has not been recorded in the books of account by the assessee. AO has wrongly made addition under Section 69A when admit....