TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: "1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in facts as well as law by sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of Rs.19,03,396 by treating the entire amount received against Sales as Unexplained Cash Credit merely on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv), Unit- 6, Kolkata, without considering the detailed submissions, explanations and documents submitted by the Appellant during the course of Assessment Proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in Law as well as of facts by ignoring the fact that the addition was made by the Ld.AO without providing opportunity of cross examination of third party and also copy of statement of third party on the basis of which ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced the sales orders through commission agents and the sale orders against which Rs. 19,03,396/- were received had been routed through a single agent viz. R.K. Textile Agency who was also responsible for ensuring payments from the parties. In support of its contention, the assessee filed a confirmation/affidavit from Shri. Gajanand Bahety Prop. of M/s. R.K. Textile Agencies. Further, the details of impugned sales of Rs. 19,03,396/- made to different parties have also been filed. However, Ld. AO made the addition of these sales u/s. 68 on the basis of the statement of Shri. Gopal Maroo, partner of M/s. Hariram Jagdish Prasad, recorded by the investigation wing, wherein he had admitted that the firm was engaged in the business of facilitating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details of Parties to whom sales were made against which the said payments were received along with the copies of Sales Bills and Delivery challans as stated in Table A above. To avoid repetition, the same is not reproduced here. It is pertinent to note that the Ld.AO has no where in his Assessment Order questioned the genuineness of Sales made by the Appellant nor he has stated anything with respect to non-acceptance of duly Audited Books of Accounts submitted to him during the course of assessment proceedings." In the light of above facts, Ld. AR has argued that since the impugned amount has already been reflected in the books of account, as part of total sales, therefore, making an addition again u/s. 68 of the Act would tantamount to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les with tangible evidence. 5.2. On the other hand, Ld. DR has vehemently argued that on the basis of creditable information received from the investigation wing, the assessees was issued notice by the Ld. AO to establish the genuineness of the transactions of Rs. 19,03,396/- with M/s. Hariram Jagdish Prasad, who had been found to be in the business of issuing cheques/drafts in lieu of cash & other way round on commission basis. Thus, Ld. AO was justified in holding the transactions to the extent of 19,03,396/- as bogus sales in view of the discrepancies pointed out in the assessment order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has furnished evidence supporting sale of goods to the ext....