TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring total income of Rs. 2,56,91,970/-. Pursuant to search and seizure action-initiated u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 03/08/2022, assessment proceedings initiated against the Assessee. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20/03/2024 by making certain additions. As against the assessment order dated 20/03/2024, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/08/2025,deleted the certain additions and upheld the addition to an extent of Rs. 40,35,080/- representing alleged unexplained cash expenditure and made addition u/s 69C r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29/08/2025,Assessee preferred the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chennai j. Shri Rajiv Kumar, Prop. M/s Sunil Sweets, Punjab Versus The ITO, Ward, Sirhind. - 2025 (12) TMI 26 - ITAT Chandigarh k. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Versus Deccan Jewellers(P) Ltd. - 2021 (9) TMI 424 - Andhra Pradesh High Court. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is only contention of the Ld. Assessee's Representative that the Lower Authorities have erred in applying provisions of Section 69C r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act, as the Assessee was having only source of income from business and there is no unexp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Total 3,49,79,723/- 14. We find the Assessing Officer in the assessment order rejected the explanation of the assessee that the same be assessed to tax as normal business income and brought the same to tax u/s 69 / 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. When the assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in bringing to tax the additional income declared during the course of survey u/s 69 / 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as against the normal business income, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed the additional income offered by the assessee u/s 69 / 69C of the Act instead of assessing it as business income, the reasons of which have already be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parties and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute regarding offering of additional income on account of excess stock for an amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- during the course of survey. We note that as rightly pointed by the ld. AR which is not disputed by the ld. DR crediting the said additional income to profit and loss account and by including in the computation of income in the total income of the assessee which clearly demonstrate the assessee offered the same as business income. The ld. AR vehemently submitted the assessee explained the difference in valuation stock as per the books explained by the assessee through answers to Q. Nos. 10 and 11 of the statement u/s. 131 of the Act and also in response to notice in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal in the case of Shri Lovish Singhal (supra) held the excess stock/cash found during the course of survey is taxable under the business and no provision u/s. 115BBE of the Act is attracted. In the present case as discussed above without any dispute the assessee offered additional income under excess stock during the course of survey and same was entered in the books of account as on the last day of financial year ending on 31-03-2019 and offered the said amounts to tax under the business income. Therefore, in our opinion, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Bajargan Traders (supra) which was followed by the Jodhpur Benches of Tribunal is similar and identical to the issue in the present ....