TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 24 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 3 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only issue emanates for consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short]. 4. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee derived net profit in the said business is of Rs..13,77,512/-, referred to page 5 of the paper book. Further, he drew our attention to the bifurcation of sales made during the year under consideration and argued that the total sales disclosed was accepted by the Assessing Officer and completed the assessment. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the addition of cash sales during demonetization period is a double addition, not justified. Further, he argued that the assessee utilized cash deposits, towards purchases through bank account and referred to page 81 & 82 of paper book. He also argued that total cash deposits during demonetization period were utilized towards payment to vendors and the Assessing Officer found no defect in the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the entries made by the assessee are colorable device to evade tax and prayed to confirm the orders of authorities below. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the total cash deposits during demonetization period were at Rs..1,20,46,470/- including SBNs of Rs..66,43,000/-. We note that the contention of the ld. AR that entire cash deposits were made out of cash sales during demonetization period. We find there is no dispute with regard to the cash sales. Therefore, source of entire cash deposits for SBNs and non-SBNs are arising out of cash sales. We note that the Assessing Officer accepted the source for cash deposits other than demonetization period arising out of cash sales, but, how....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k during demonetization period cannot be doubted. Since the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) could not point out any defects in purchases, we find that the assessee has clearly demonstrated that the payments made towards purchases to the vendors were arising out of cash sales. We find force in the argument of the ld. AR that the assessee is not obliged to maintain identity records of the retail customers as there is no requirement in the Act by a fruit vendor to collect PAN, address proof, etc. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in holding that there is no identity records of purchaser available on record. Therefore, the source of cash deposits are out of ordi....