TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA NO.5767/Del/2025 also. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 : 1. That on facts and in law, both the impugned assessment order dated 21.12.2019 passed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and consequent impugned appellate order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") u/s. 250 of the Act affirming the impugned assessment order are contrary to settled law, perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in facts and law in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs. 24,86,269/- made by the Ld. AO under an unspecified section on account of unverifiable sundry creditors, in complete disregard to the documentary evidence placed on record. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO grossly failed to appreciate that alleged unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 61,00,000/-, represents disclosed cash sales recorded in audited financials/ITR and that deeming provisions of Section 68 of the Act shall not apply vide Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO erred on facts and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2019 passed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and consequent impugned appellate order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") u/s. 250 of the Act affirming the impugned assessment order are contrary to settled law, perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO grossly erred in holding cash found/ seized amounting to Rs. 72,34,000/- as unexplained, without disputing the excess cash balance appearing in audited financials/ITR and while completely disregarding the fact that the seized cash represents disclosed sales duly offered to tax and hence outside the purview of Section 68 of the Act vide JMK Exports vs. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 481 (Delhi - Trib.). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO grossly failed to appreciate that alleged unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,51,93,235/- represents disclosed cash sales recorded in audited financials/ITR and that deeming provisions of Section 68 of the Act shall not apply vide Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO erred on facts and in law in invoking inapplicable provisions of Section 68 of the Act, withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the material available on record. 6. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it would not like to press its ground of appeal no.8. Accordingly, ground of appeal no.8 is dismissed as not pressed. 7. The first issue emanating from the above raised grounds of appeal by the assessee is regarding an addition of Rs. 24,86,269/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of unverified sundry creditors. It is the case of the revenue that the appellant had not provided any details to the ld. Assessing Officer in this regard. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed a voluminous paper book comprising extracts of ledger copies, bank statement, confirmations from the parties so as to allude genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness and identity of the parties. It has been vehemently argued that the impugned details were made available both the ld. Assessing Officer as well as with ld. CIT(A) and which got omitted to be considered in their true perspective. The ld. Counsel has argued that it had given the same set of documents to both the ld. TPO as well as ld. Assessing Officer and the former did not draw any adverse inferences. The ld. Counsel thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....book filed by the appellant, we have noted that the assessee had, provided requisite evidences before the lower authorities. Copies of assessee's submissions on pages-68 to 134, 122 to 436 of its paper book for AY 2016-17 are clearly indicative that the appellant was providing requested information to the ld. Assessing Officer. In fact in the above backdrop, the hypothesis contained in the assessment order of assessee not complying with Assessing Officer's notices becomes incomprehensible and far from convincing. We have also noted from para-6.0 To 6.2 of the assessment order that the ld. Assessing Officer was giving purely un contextual, unclear and incomprehensible observations while making the impugned addition. Evidences have not been properly brought on record by the lower authorities and their views are purely resting on conjectures and surmises. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 61 lakhs. The respective ground of appeal stands allowed in favour of the assessee. 14. The next issue raised by the assessee is regarding an addition of Rs. 33.83 lakhs. The Ld. Assessing Office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's bank account for which apparently no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming. As per the brief factual matrix narrated by ld. Assessing Officer in his impugned assessment order observed that a search action u/s 132 had taken place on 08.06.2016 in the case of Shri Sunil Jain Group of cases. The assessee had filed its Return of Income on 31.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 49,71,220/-. The assessee company is engaged in the business of trading of computer hardware software and related accessories. The ld. Assessing Officer has made following observations about non-compliance of assessee to his statutory notices in para-6 of his order. "6. Neither anybody attended on 10.12.2018 nor has any communication regarding adjournment been received till date. Since the assessment in this case is time barring, I have no other alternative but to finalize this assessment according to law on merits and on the basis of material available on record." 20. Considering the above, the, ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to add an amount of Rs. 72.34 lakhs and of Rs. 1,51,83,235/- as unexplained cash deposits. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer holding t....