TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the inference drawn by the AO that the assessee had manipulated its cash sales in view of the fact that 80% of total sales were shown as cash sales during the period 1.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 being the period prefix to the demonetization wherein address of the parties remained unverifiable? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 3,64,50,000/- on account of unexplained cash u/s 68 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to produce confirmation of 10 identifiable persons with whom alleged concocted cash sales transactions were made during the demonetizati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted order. 6. The Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the department relied upon the orders passed by the AO. It was submitted that after verification of documents submitted by the assessee, the Ld.AO has rightly observed and concluded that: "i. Confirmation filed on behalf of third party does not have credibility. These parties failed to confirm the transaction even their address did not get verified. Confirmation filed by the assessee on behalf of those parties cannot be relied upon. ii. Stock register is not submitted. Therefore stock purchases and sales thereon remained unverified. iii. Assessee has submitted details of purchase parties but no other supporting documents were submitted. iv. Full details c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....identifiable persons with whom alleged concocted sale in cash was made during the demonetization period. The cases of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 80 ITR 540 (SC) were also relied upon. 8. On the contrary, Ld.AR while relying upon the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) also submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had placed on record all the documentary evidences to prove the source of cash deposited by the assessee. It was submitted that assessee had proved copy of ITR -V, computation of income, copy of financials, copy of form cash transaction, 2016, bank book, copies of sales bill and table showing the name and details of purchases. 9. We have heard the Counsels for both the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the other sales of Rs. 5,73,96,00/- is from 31 identifiable persons without PAN and the meagre amount of Rs. 43,700/-, was from an identifiable persons and this way assessee has proved on record. The total cash sales made of Rs. 3,59,66,500/-. However, the Ld.AO merely compare the sale figures of immediately preceding year with the sale figures of other months of F.Y 2016-17 and concluded that explanation of the assessee is untenable, and this disallowed the entire deposit. 12. We cannot lost sight of the fact that the period of demonetization was an exceptional circumstances where in there was fear among most of the members of the public and therefore Public was out and out to make purchases in cash. 13. What is important at this sta....