9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) is bad and against the facts and law. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to Rs. 63,37,500/- u/s 68 of the Act. 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld genuine sales of Rs. 63,37,500/- as unaccounted cash credit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act to levy tax at higher rate. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has not passed speaking order about the higher tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE wrongly applied by the learned assessing officer on the addition confirmed by CIT(A) on the addition confirmed by CIT(A) on account of cash deposited by the appellant out of its sales proceeds u/s 68 of the Act. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition made by the learned assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,67,700/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny and the consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs. 71,04,700/-, wherein the Assessing Officer (hereinafter, the 'AO') held that the assessee has introduced its own unaccounted cash through the Profit & Loss Account. Accordingly, the AO held the sum of Rs. 63,37,500/- as unexplained and taxed the same under section 68 r.w.s. 115B of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal, which was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the 'AR') submitted that the AO had questioned sales without rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant/assessee. It was categorically submitted that the appellant/assessee who used to trade in domestic Marbles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect the interstate sales for the period 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 were uncalled for. Accordingly, the Ld. AR requested for relief of Rs. 63,37,500/-. 4.2 The Ld. AR contended that the AO had not doubted any purchase, stock-in-trade, book results, etc. It was submitted that the imported goods were only after paying custom duty and the Custom Authority had not doubted any import. It was further reiterated that the books of account had not been rejected by the AO; therefore, doubting sales were not justified at all. It was further submitted that the VAT returns were not revised; therefore, raising suspicion on the VAT return by the AO on the reasoning that the original VAT return for the demonetization period filed on 25.01.2017 was not j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axes. The Ld. AO also doubted the cash sales on the reasoning that sales taken place during October had not been deposited within the reasonable time of 02-05 days from the date of cash receipts, before 08.11.2016 i.e. the date of demonetization as normal prudent man would deposit cash sales within the reasonable time period after cash sales. She further contended that the AO had doubted sales for the period 01.10.2016 to 08.11.2016 and that was why such sales were taxed as cash credits. She further submitted that doubting cash sales were nothing but non-acceptance of book results. She also drew our attention to various paras of the impugned order to buttress her inference. 6. We have heard both parties and have perused the material availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
