Ravish Vohra, New Delhi V. DCIT Circle-20(2), New Delhi

ITA 161/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8491 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K.GOEL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 44AD; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.161/Del/2023 [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ravish Vohra, C-11, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-110021. PAN-AAEPV2296B vs DCIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri S.K.Goel, CA & Shri Mohit Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2024 ORDER PER N.K.BILLAIYA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of Ld.CIT(A)- 27, New Delhi dated 30.12.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.17,13,484/- out of total addition of Rs.43,00,000/-. 3. The Ld. Representatives of both sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 02.08.2017, declaring income of Rs.29,94,300/-. The return was revised on 16.11.2017 at the same income. Page | 2 5. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (“CASS”) and accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) asked the assessee to explain the cash deposited in his bank account amounting to Rs.43,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The assessee filed a reply which did not find any favour of the AO who was of the opinion that the assessee has enhanced its sale without the actual sale by way of revising its record in the post-demonetization period and made addition of Rs.43,00,000/-. 6. The assessee challenged the addition before Ld.CIT(A) and strongly contended that the cash deposited in the bank account was out of cash sales and cash sales have been accepted in the VAT returns. 7. After considering the facts and submissions, Ld.CIT(A) observed that since the assessee has filed his return of income u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), he was not required to maintain books of account and in the absence of books of accounts, it is very difficult to determine that at what point of time, actual cash sales were made. We are here to determine the time period of cash sales through VAT returns. Ld.CIT(A) accepted the sales for the quarter July to September, 2016 amounting to Rs.11,35,442/-. However, since the appellant revised the VAT returns for July to September, 2016 by increasing the sales to Rs.28,48,928/-. Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee could not give any genuine reason for such large sale of Rs.17,13,486/- which was not mentioned in the original VAT return and Page | 3 confirmed the addition of Rs.17,13,486/-. The relevant findings of Ld.CIT(A) read as under:- 8. Findings and Decision ................. v. “The appellant had filed the VAT return for the quarter July to September, 2016 on 7.11.2016 declaring total sales at Rs. 11,35,442/-. The demonetization scheme was announced on 8.11.2016. Therefore, this sale figures can be accepted as genuine. vi. However, the appellant revised the July to September, 2016 quarter VAT return on 30.01.2017 declaring total sales at 28,48,928/-. The increase in sales is Rs.17,13,486/-. vii. While revising the VAT return, the appellant had increased the sales by 151% and this cannot be considered as normal deviation. Appellant has also not provided any genuine reason for not declaring such a large sale of Rs. 17,13,486/-in his original VAT return. viii. Now another interesting point to observe is cash sales declared by the appellant in this quarter le. July-September, 2016. The cash sales as provided by the appellant and also appearing in the assessment order are as under: Sl.No. Month Cash Sales in Rs. 1. July 663007 2. August 638115 3. September 565406 Total 1866528 ix. From the above table, it can be observed that cash sales during this quarter is almost equal to the amount of sales by which VAT return for this quarter was revised. x. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the VAT return for the quarter July-September, 2016 was revised by the appellant with the Page | 4 intention to accommodate his unexplained money and therefore addition of Rs.17,13,484/-u/s 69A of the Act is confirmed. xi. For the balance amount of addition of Rs.25,86,516/- (4300000- 1713484), the contention of the Id. AO that this cash deposit during demonetization period does not represent proceed of cash sales is not supported by any evidence as there is no doubt that assessee is carrying out the business and this business involves cash sales. Therefore, addition of Rs.25,86,516/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act is deleted.” 8. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not point out any factual error in the afore-mentioned findings of Ld.CIT(A) though placed reliance on several judicial decisions. 9. We are of the considered view that each decision is on the facts of its own case and therefore, may not support the facts of the case in hand and since the findings of Ld.CIT(A) are based upon appreciation of true facts and no error has been pointed out, we decline to interfere. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28 th February, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (N.K.BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Page | 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI