TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appellate Centre [CITA] u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 bearing ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063571698(1). The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appellate Centre [Ld. CITA] has erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the case in upholding the Assessment Order dated 24- 12-2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in determining the assessed income at 23,74,74,267/- as against the returned income of 257,77,270/ -. 2. The Ld. CITA has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without observing the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld. CITA has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer [Ld. AO] in making addition of Cash Sales deposited in bank amounting to 23,16,97,000/- being alleged Unexplained Credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. 4. The Ld. CITA has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act by levying tax at special rates of 77.25% including Surcharge and Cess. 5. The Ld. CITA has erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....81 2,40,000 3,58,04,339 29,71,54,407 33,29,58,746 27,07,50,586 3,60,37,872 The above details furnished by the assessee was not found acceptable to the ld. AO. According to him, the trend shown by the assessee was abnormal; there is no cash sales in the months of April & May, 2016 as also in the months of July, August &September, 2016. And there is a nominal cash sale in the months of January, February & March. The ld. AO also observed that the cash sales shown in the months of October 2016 and November, 2016 are Rs. 66,10,900/- and Rs. 2,61,49,909, respectively, which is not as per assessee's business trend. The Id. AO also noticed that the November sale is only for eight dates, i.e. upto the date of declaration of demonetization. With regard to the further query, the assessee replied that the assessee had not maintained the details of persons to whom the sales were made as the sales were below the permissible limit. The ld.AO finally noticed that the majority of the cash sales were made on dates closer to the declaration of demonetization and that this cannot be coincidence. Therefore, he held that this is nothing but introduction of specified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y from walk in customers for sale of jewellery over the counter and the amount so received was duly recorded in the books of account. The said amount alongwith other cash balance available with the assessee was deposited into the bank account after announcement of demonetization by the Government of India. He also submitted that the assessee has raised sale bills against the said advances in the name of respective customers. Since the transaction was less than Rs. 2.00 lakhs, it was stated that the assessee did not collect complete details of the customers. Thus, it is seen that the advance amount collected from customers, the sales bill raised against them etc., have been duly recorded in the books of account. The impugned deposits have been made from cash balance available with books of account. I also notice that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account. When cash deposits have been made from the cash balance available in the books of account, in my view, there is no question of treating the said deposits as unexplained cash deposit as opined by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld A.R relied on certain case laws which are relevant to the issue under cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxation. The AO has not pointed out any specific adversity but made a generalize addition without considering the factual aspects and primary evidence. The A.O has failed to make further enquiries on the information filed and the assessee has discharged the initial burden placed by submitting the information and details. We find the CIT(A) has dealt on the facts, provisions of law, notes and judicial decisions. The Ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent material or information on the disputed issues to take different view. We considered the facts, circumstances, submissions and ratio of judicial decisions as discussed above are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and conclusive order. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue." 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) page 65. The relevant paragraph 6.1.2 is reproduced as below :- "6.1.2 I have gone through the addition made by the Assessing Officer seating the entire cash deposits of Rs.3.16,57,000 as unexplained credits uls.68 of the Act and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05,988 2,75,05,988 43,56,044 6,70,000 September,2016 - 1,86,23,559 1,86,23,559 3,19,11,014 - October, 2016 66,10,900 2,91,64,593 35,77,54,593 1,27,38,801 9,87,000 November, 2016 2,61,49,909 7,54,20,410 10,15,70,319 7,45,08,095 3,17,97,100 December, 2016 - 3,265,79,182 3,265,79,182 1,60,07,490 - January, 2017 1,51,000 1,48,69,285 1,50,28,285 2,36,98,010 81,242 February, 2017 11.06,530 1,57,32,851 1,68,39,381 2,64,55,108 12,57,530 March, 2017 10,23,000 3,72,91,011 3,83,14,011 2,97,44,381 2,40,000 3,58,04,339 29,71,54,407 33,29,58,746 27,07,50,586 3,60,37,872 5.2 The trend shown by assessee is abnormal. There is no cash sales in the months of April & May 2016. Again, there are no cash sales in the month of July, August & September 2016. There are nominal cash sales of Rs. 763,000 in the month of June 2016. Cash sales in the months of January February & March is also Rs. 1,57.000 Rs. 11,06,530 & Rs. 10,23,000 respectively. 5.3 Only in the month of October 2016 and November 2016 assessee has shown cash sales ....