TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 2092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of the assessee and the excess stock was surrendered during the survey proceedings and was also offered to tax under PMGKY scheme of the department. 3. That the addition is made on suspicion of tax evasion, which is totally unfounded and the assessee's explanation and evidences in the form of sales bills, sale register, stock register, purchase bills were disregarded and ignored blindly and nothing contrary was brought on record. 4. That the addition was made & confirmed by lower authorities without properly considering the submissions and evidences filed before them. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in applying the theory "Human Probability Test and Preponderance of Probability in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in giving a finding that there has been backdating by the appellant in the sales bills to accommodate the demonetised/SBN currency notes cash to bring such cash in the books of accounts through the fictitious sales bills in the month of October and Nov. 2016 and that during the demonetization the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the view of the learned assessing officer in holding that where the nature and source of any receipt/investment, whether it be money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open for the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that income is from any particular source. 16. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in relying on various judicial pronouncements having different facts and circumstances when compared to the case of the appellant. 17. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the invocation of the provisions of Section 69A which are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 18. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,80,91,436/- made by the Id. AO invoking provisions of Section 69A of the Act representing bank deposits rejecting the explanations and evidences adduced by the appellant on the basis of presumptions and surmises. 19. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s books are not reliable. As the assessee is depositing has also declared Rs. 12104500/- in PMGKY so considering all these facts the bank deposits out of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- Rs. 12104500/- and Rs. 38,04,064/- is treated as genuine and the remaining balance of Rs. 1,80,91,436/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A and is being taxed at special rate u/s 115BBE Further penalty 271AAC are being initiated separately in view of the additions being made u/s 69A read with 115BBE". 5. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee has filed appeal before the Id CIT(A) who has granted part relief to the assessee and confirmed part addition without considering the submission and judicial decisions in right perspective. The Id CIT(A) observed firstly that the excess stock quantity as determined during survey itself is unverifiable and doubtful' but actuality there was no difference in stock quantity of stock found at the time of survey and as per books, but whatever the difference was in the stock as on the date of survey has been surrendered under scheme of PMGKY and paid taxes and secondly, even if that is treated correct, that means the unaccounted stock arising due to fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....money (cash-in-hand) in bank accounts and created the cushion for the unexplained cash during the demonetization without bringing any contrary material on the record and disproving the fact of outward movements of stock of gold & Jewellery. The AR submitted that the learned CIT Appeal has given no basis or corroborative documentary evidence in giving a finding that the sales were fictitious and bogus and there was backdating of the sales invoices to accommodate the demonetised/SBN currency notes cash with the appellant and upholds the rejection of books of the appellant u/s 145(3) without bringing any contrary material on the record even ignoring the fact that Ld. A.O. has accepted trading results of the appellant. 8. The AR contended that Ld. CIT Appeals has over looked the finding of the survey team while concluding that the survey team did not examine fictitious sales billing before the date of 08.11.2016 (i.e. during 01.10.2016 to 07.11.2016) and only surrender of fictitious sales billing on 08.11.2016 was made during the course of survey and the excess stock quantity as determined during survey itself is unverifiable and doubtful in concluding that the legitimate cash in ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with bills and vouchers. The books of account were found and impounded at the time of survey wherein complete details of quantity of gold, gold ornaments purchased, sold and stock available with the assessee firm was accounted for. The computerized bills and other supporting evidences are also being impounded at the time of survey and hence lying with department. Meaning thereby that, the transactions in respect of cash sales made by appellant firm and the cash so received towards such sales were deposited in bank account are duly recorded in impounded books. 10.2. From the record, it evident that the Sales made by the assessee as shown in the regular books of account have been accepted by the assessing Officer while framing assessment. The assessee was having opening cash and sufficient stock in hand for making the impugned sales during the demonetization period and it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown bogus purchases to show bogus sales to cover up cash deposited during the demonetization period. Furthermore, AO/CIT(A) and the defendant Ld. DR for revenue failed to controvert the evidence produced by the Ld. AR and to rebut the availability ....