Amar Nath Harbans Lal, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-47(5), New Delhi

ITA 1716/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1565 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 68; 69; 145; 44AD; 234B; 205; 145(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1716/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amar Nath Harbans Lal, M-73, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi. PAN: AAHFA4925F Vs. ITO, Ward-47(5), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2022 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.06.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. That the assessment order passed on 21.12.2019 as has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 01.06.2022, are perverse to the law and to the facts of the case, as such not tenable because of the non-issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2), as claimed to be issued and served. 2. That no proper and reasonable opportunity if any has ever been afforded prior to pass the order on 21.12.2019, as the appellant was required to file reply on 06.12.2019, with reference to the show ITA No.1716/Del/2022 2 cause notice issued on 03.12.2019 (within a span of 2 days only), which the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to consider. 3. That the order passed on 21.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was further incorrect as wrong under the law and to the facts of the case, because the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) have altogether failed to adjudicate the reply filed by the appellant on 06.12.2019 before the Assessing Officer. 4. That the order passed as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was further unconstitutional against the law and to the facts of the case, because the entire turnover of purchase, which was sold subsequently, the appellant has already declared higher percentage of profit @ 22% u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while filing his ITR for the A.Y. 2017-18, though under the said provisions of law, the appellant could have declared profit on the total turnover @ 8%, which has already been accepted as correct, as such no further illegal and impugned additions if any could be made in the same. 5. That the conclusion drawn for the purpose of doing further illegal and impugned additions of Rs. 1020000/- in the hands of the appellant was appears to be not supported with any cogent material either collected, confronted or ever placed upon records having any nexus to the illegal and impugned additions further made in the declared income of the appellant, as such the same is entirely based only upon mere whimsical assumptions, presumptions and guess work of the Assessing Officer. 6. That the conclusion /opinion drawn by the Assessing Officer as alleging to be the basis for the additions of Rs. 10,20,000/- in Para-7 & Para- 7.1 of the assessment order being opined to be the concocted sale if any be booked by the appellant is not tenable as without the support of any material either collected or ever placed upon records having any nexus to the above. 7. That the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that since the appellant has already declared his turnover of purchase and consequently sales thereof u/s 44AD of the Act, in the absence of requirement to maintain any books of accounts under the said provisions of law, the Assessing Officer has erred under the law to invoke section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 commenting upon to reject the books of accounts of the appellant, which the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No.1716/Del/2022 3 has also failed to appreciate while adjudicating the appeal of the appellant on 01.06.2022. 8. That the lump sum additions so further made and restricted to the extent @ 30% of the cash deposited in the bank account, appears to be incorrect under the law and to the facts of the case, as the appellant has already declared profit @ 22% thereupon on the same turnover u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, according to which the ITR has filed for the said year. 9. That lump sum additions so further made and restricted to the extent of 30% on the cash appears to be deposited of Rs. 34 lakhs was further perverse to the law and to the facts of the case, because of not based upon any cogent material either collected or ever placed upon records having nexus to the lump sum additions made @ 30% thereupon, without taking into consideration that the appellant has already paid / deposited tax thereupon @ 22% u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. That the enhancement of sale to the extent of Rs. 1,29,79,543/- is also illegal, against the law and to the facts of the case, as without the support of any material either collected or ever placed upon records in support thereto having any nexus to the extent of its enhancement thereof. 11. That the Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed his jurisdiction to complete the assessment of the appellant pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18 on an income of Rs. 32,67,670/- against the declared income of Rs. 22,47,670/-. 12. That the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant in a very casual and routine manner without taking into consideration the proper facts and relevant provisions of law and to the reply filed by the appellant before the Assessing Officer and before him also during the course of appellate proceedings. 13. That the interest charged u/s 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, are further illegal as against the law and to the facts of the case. 14. That the appellant assails his right to amend, alter or change any grounds of appeal at any time even during the course of hearing of this instant appeal. ITA No.1716/Del/2022 4 PRAYER:- It is, therefore, prayed: 1. That the assessment order passed on 21.12.2019, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on 01.06.2022 may please be.quashed or alternatively the illegal and impugned additions so made of Rs. 10,20,000/-, may please be deleted/quashed also 2. That the interest charged u/s 234B and penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act, may also be waived being consequential to the illegal and impugned additions so made and relief claimed therefrom. 3. That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may please be deemed fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. It is prayed accordingly.” [ 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the appellant is engaged in the small scale trading business of jewellery, silver and its other allied items, accessories thereof and has filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring an income of Rs.22,47,669/- u/s 44AD of the Act declaring the profit @ 17.31% on the total turnover of Rs.1,29,79,542/- which has also accordingly been declared in the VAT return filed for the financial period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and the same have also been accepted as correct by the VAT Department without pointing out any discrepancy therein. The ld. AR further pointed out that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the AO, without taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the law and the facts of the case, concluded that the appellant has booked concocted sale to adjust their undisclosed income and rejected the books of account by invoking the ITA No.1716/Del/2022 5 provisions of section 145(3) of the Act without appreciating some glaring facts. The ld. Counsel, placing reliance on the various judgements including the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of J.M. Wires Inds. Vs. CIT reported as (2012) 205 Taxman 134 (Delhi); the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Atish Singla vs. ITO, dated 06.04.2022, vide ITA No.1185/Del/2021 for AY 2017-18; and the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad, SMC Bench, in the case of Shri Lateef Abdul Mohd. Vs. ITO, dated 10.06.2022 in ITA No.501/Hyd/2021 for AY 2017-18, the ld. Counsel submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances of the case, the coordinate SMC Bench of the Tribunal has held that the addition in respect of the amount of cash deposited during post demonetization period is not sustainable when the nature of source of old currency note is fully supported and substantiated by the depositor assessee. 4. Replying to the above, the ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention towards relevant part of the assessment order, submitted that the AO, after keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances and explanation of the assessee, rightly concluded that the assessee has booked concocted cash sales to adjust his undisclosed income during the demonetization period and concocted cash sales was booked through manipulation in the books of account and, therefore, it was found that the book results of the assessee were not reliable and the AO rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act by properly following the procedure and under the powers available to him under the relevant provisions of the Act. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the AO was also correct and right in making the ITA No.1716/Del/2022 6 addition of 30% of the cash deposited in the bank during post demonetization period. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was rightly confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 5. The ld. Sr. DR also drew our attention towards paras 7 to 7.5 of the first appellate order and submitted that the ld. First appellate authority, after considering the ratio of the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC); Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC); Vasantibai N. Shah vs. CIT, 213 ITR 805; Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. Vs. CIT, 49 ITR 112 (SC); and the judgement of the Hon’ble Punjan & Haryana High Court in the case of Parveen Kumar vs. CIT (2019) 110 taxmann.com 256 (P&H), rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO as the appellant assessee had failed to prove the source of cash deposit in the bank account during the post-demonetization period during the course of assessment as well as first appellate proceedings with any cogent and sustainable evidence. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently pointed out that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the AO may kindly be confirmed. 6. On careful consideration of the above rival submissions, first of all, I noted that undisputedly, the assessee deposited cash amount of Rs.34 lakhs during post demonetization period. Thereafter, the assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.22,47,670/- u/s 44AD of the Act declaring ITA No.1716/Del/2022 7 profit @ 17.31% on the total declared turnover of Rs.1,29,79,542/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO allowed due opportunity of hearing to the assessee for explaining the source of old currency notes deposited during post demonetization period by sustainable and reliable evidence, but, the assessee failed to do so. Under the above noted facts and circumstances, I proceed to adjudicate the grievance of the assessee. 7. The AO declined to accept the explanation of the assessee after considering the details of cash sales and cash deposit in the bank account during the present FY 2017-18 with immediately preceding two financial years 2014-15 and 2015- 16 and, thereafter, concluded that the assessee has booked heavy cash sale for Rs.32,21,092/- in the months of 2016 in a week prior to demonetization period and the same trend has not been observed during the immediately preceding two financial periods. The AO also considered the percentage of cash sales during the financial period under consideration with immediately preceding two financial years and declined to accept the contention of the assessee. The AO also considered the overall monthly cash deposits during the present FY with immediately preceding two financial periods and noted that in the month of November, 2016 the assessee has booked cash sale of Rs.32,21,092/- which is quite abnormal and, thereafter, concluded that concocted cash sales have been booked by the assessee in November, 2016 to adjust his undisclosed income and cash deposit to his bank account during post demonetization period. The AO also ITA No.1716/Del/2022 8 concluded that concocted cash sales have been booked through manipulation of books of account and for this reason, the assessee rejected the books of account of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Finally, the AO adjudicated the issue with a finding that the addition of 30% of cash deposit to the bank account of the assessee during post demonetization period as being manipulated will meet the ends of justice and made an addition of Rs.10,20,000/- to the returned income of the assessee. 8. The aggrieved assessee carried the matter before the ld.CIT(A) and filed the following submissions for the consideration of the ld. First appellate authority:- “1. Return of Income was filed declaring income of Rs.22,47,669/- on 30.11.2017 and the assessment was completed by making addition of Rs.10,20,000/- taking the 30% of cash deposit of Rs.34,00,000/- made during demonetization period during the F.Y 2016-17 relevant to AY2017-18 and creating a demand of Rs.4,29,769/-. Penalty under section 270A of the Act was initiated. 2. That the appellant has declared Income from business on the presumptive basis under section44AD of the Act. 3. During the year under relevant, appellant has been deriving the income from business and declared the turnover of Rs. 1,29,79,542/- on which profit of Rs. 22,47, 669/- is declared at the rate of 17.31% which fulfills the condition of section 44AD. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, appellant has fully cooperated in the proceedings and made the compliance to the satisfaction of the Ld.AO. 6. The relevant documents substantiating the turnover viz., bank statements, comparative charts, etc and income were also furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, detailed ITA No.1716/Del/2022 9 submissions were also made explaining the reason for spike in sales and the same is duly verified by the VAT returns. The copy of the same are also being adduced herewith for your kind perusal. On perusing the assessment order, the following important points have been emerged for your kind consideration:- 1. That the said case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the basis that there was abnormal cash deposit during demonetization period. 2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant explicitly submitted that the sales is duly matched with VAT return but no kind efforts were made by the Ld.AO to take the cognizance of this VAT return which is filed with Sales Tax Department and made the addition arbitrarily and illegally. 3. The Ld.AO has himself admitted the fact in para no.6.6 that G.P rate and N.P rate is much higher in FY 2016-17 as compared to G.P and N.P rate of AY 2015-16. When the assessee is reflecting much better results as compared to previous year but the AO despite this fact remained elusive and feigned of the fact and made the addition. 3. That the Ld.AO has alleged and concluded in para no.7 that assessee has booked concocted sales but failed to pin point any defect in the VAT returns and other relevant documents which were furnished to substantiating the Sales and deposits in the bank accounts. Thus the addition wholly is made on whimsical ground and is arbitrary and unlawful. 4. That the Ld. AO has mentioned in para 9 of the assessment order that the assessee has manipulated the books of accounts and therefore his books of accounts are rejected under section 145 of the Act. The observation of the AO proves that he has completely ignored the fact the assessee has declared his income under section 44AD which is filed in the cases where no books of accounts are maintained. Further, another mistake on the part of AO is that he never asked the books of accounts and rejection without pointing out any defect is another example of arbitrariness on the part of the AO. 5. That the Ld.AO has averted that the sales to Rs. 1,29,79,542/- but it is not comprehensible that the same amount of sales has been declared by the undersigned in his return so estimating the same on ITA No.1716/Del/2022 10 the part of the Ld.AO shows that he is not fully conversant with the facts of the case. 6. That the appellant has opted to file return u/s. 44AD is not obliged to explain individual entry of cash deposit in bank unless the AO proves that the said cash deposit has no nexus with gross receipts. 7. That the Cash in hand cannot be ascribed to concocted without bringing evidence on record, wren assessee had furnished the cogent material proving the sales, creditors, debtors, bank staiements and the AO had not made any further enquiry. 8. That the Ld.AO has also failed to mention the provision under which addition was made and initiated the penalty under section 270A of the Act which is for under reporting of income. Furthermore, Your kind attention is also drawn to the infra verdicts of the Hon'ble Courts where the taxing authorities have not made proper enquiry before making addition and consequently addition held to be unsustainable:- (i) Cit vs.. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. cit (sc)- ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. (ii) The Court held that the assessee discharged the burden by explaining the source, identity of creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Deletion of addition is held to be justified. (AY.2004-05) CIT v. T. B. Kunhimahin Haji and others. (2019) 415 ITR 491 (Ker.)(HC) (iii) Cash credits-AO acting unreasonably and capriciously in rejecting genuine explanations offered by assessee in respect of cash deposits as unsatisfactory-Additions is unsustainable.(AY. 2012-13 to 2017-18) Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 76 ITR 504 (Delhi)(Tribunal) (iv) Shri Balakrishnana Anand, Bangalore v. Income Tax Officer Ward- 13(4), Bangalore ...pointedout that the bank statement is available for the relevant period and submitted that on 13.1.2011, there was a cash deposit of Rs. 10.01 lakhs. It is seen that the withdrawal of Rs.25.05 lakhs from the City ITA No.1716/Del/2022 11 ...10.01.2011 and the deposit of cash in the bank account of Rs.10.01 lakhs is on13.01.2011 and therefore, in my considered opinion, the source of deposit stands explained. Hence this addition is deleted. (v) Munni Lai, Gurugram v. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurugram ...the assessment order passed by Ld AO is bad in law in making addition in respect of cash deposit in bank account as Unexplained other sources of income u/s 69 of the Inc.... 1,07,233 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 650,000 for cash deposit in bank u/s 69 despite having proof of business of Kiryana items instead of...650,000 for cash deposit in bank when sufficient cash in hand shown by appellant by submitting proper cash flow statement, the onus was shifted to Id. CIT (A) to pinpoint any defector mistake for sustaining any addition. (vi) PCIT v. DLF Commercial Project Corporation. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 308/ (2019) 411 ITR716/ 260 Taxman 2 (Delhi) (HC)- Cash credits-Deposits from members of pubic-PAN numbers, address and particulars, relating to cheques were furnished-Assessing Officer has not carried out any further enquiry-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal was held to be justified. Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that, all relevant particular such as identity details relating to depositors, their PAN numbers, addresses, and particulars relating to cheques paid were furnished by the assessee, however the AO has not carried out any enquiries under law from concerned banks, addition was held to be not justified. In view of the above mentioned facts, it conclusively proved that the Ld.AO has passed the order without examining the facts, on conjectures and surmises and in haste manner which is legally not correct and hence the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. We are hereby submitting the copy of VAT Returns, comparative chart of cash sales made during different financial years, GP and Ratio Chart, Bank Statements and our submission humbly requestinq that assesee has file its return of income u/s 44AD of the income tax act, 1961 and has considered all the cash deposits as sales while computing the turnover and has paid the tax due.” ITA No.1716/Del/2022 12 9. But, the assessee remained empty handed as the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal with the following observations and findings:- “7. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the appellant and material available on record. The only issue in this appeal is addition of Rs. 10,20,000/- being 30% of total cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period. The appellant has booked cash sales of Rs 32,21,092/- during the month of Nov 2016 as compared to cash sales of Rs 1,34,830/- during Nov 2015. Demonetization was declared on the eve of 8th Nov 2016, after which there was shortage of cash in the market. Hence, it can be said that the above cash sale have been made during 1.11.2016 to 08.011.2016. It is seen that there is sudden spike in purchase as well as cash sales during the month of Nov 2016. The appellant has been unable to explain the sudden spike in the sales during the month of Nov 2016. In absence of any satisfactory explanation, his claim cannot be accepted that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were out of cash sales. 7.1 In the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT(SC)107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT (SC) 50 ITR 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. 7.2 Ratio in the case of SumatiDatyal Vs CIT(SC) 214 ITR 801 are applicable in this case.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT [1995]214 ITR 801 (SC),held that “this raises the question whether the apparent can be considered as real. As laid down by this Court, apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. P. Mohanakala held that “We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the submission. The findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below are based on proper appreciation of the facts and the material available on record ITA No.1716/Del/2022 13 and surrounding circumstances. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee has been duly taken into consideration by the authorities below. The transactions though apparent were held to be not real one.” 7.3 In the case of Vasantibai N. Shah Vs CIT 213 ITR 805 and Sreelekha Banerjee & lrs. Vs CIT(SC) 49 ITR 112 - Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year it may be charged to Income Tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year if the explanation offered by assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory.In the case of K.R.S. Suresh Vs ITO, ITAT Chennai, in ITA Nos. 1458 & 1459 (Mds) of 2012 / [2013] 37 taxman.com 259 (Chennai Trib), confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash credits as they were not proved with sources for such deposits by the assessees. 7.4 In ITA No. 453 of 2017 / [2019] 110 taxmann.com 256 (Punjab & Haryana) in the case of Parveen Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ludhiana it was held that the evidence was not there to explain the cash deposits made to the tune of Rs. 23.39 lakhs. There was nothing on record to support the fact that the amounts withdrawn from the salary account were re¬-deposited. The FDRs of the assessee indicated that he was intelligently investing the amount with the bank. 7.5 In view of the above decision of various Tribunals and Courts and since the appellant had failed to prove the source of cash deposit in bank account during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the current proceedings with any cogent evidence, the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.10,20,000/- is confirmed. Thus, the grounds of appeal is dismissed.” 10. First of all, I find it appropriate to respectfully consider the judgement/orders relied upon by the assessee. In the case of J.M. Wires Inds. Vs. CIT (supra) their Lordships, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case held that, it is the AO who disbelieved the version of the assessee though the ITA No.1716/Del/2022 14 assessee was maintaining that it had actually made the sales. From a careful reading of the said judgement, I respectfully note that this is not a case of cash deposit to the bank account during post demonetization period. The question for consideration of the Hon’ble High Court was that as to whether the assessee was under obligation to establish the source of receipt of amount shown to have been received as sale proceeds from a particular firm, i.e., M/s Sandeep Wire Industries, but, the facts and circumstances of the present case are not similar and identical as, in the present case, I have to adjudicate the issue pertaining to the amount of cash deposit by the assessee to his bank account during the post demonetization period. In view of the findings arrived at by the AO in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in para 6 of assessment order, I respectfully note that the benefit of ratio of the said judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi is not available for the assessee in the present case. 11. So far as the order of ITAT Delhi SMC Bench in the case of Atish Singla vs. ITO (supra) and the order of the ITAT, Hyderabad, SMC Bench, in the case of Shri Lateef Abdul Mohd. Vs. ITO (supra) are concerned, in the case of Atish Singla (supra), it was the claim of the assessee that the cash deposit to the bank account during post demonetization period was purely sale proceeds and partly realization from debtors for which complete details were filed before the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A), but, in the present case, it is not the argument of the ITA No.1716/Del/2022 15 assessee that the amount deposited to its bank account was partly realization from debtors. Regarding the explanation of the assessee that the amount deposited to bank account is proceeds of cash sales during November 2016 is concerned, the AO has called for the pattern of cash sales by the assessee for the relevant FY 2016-17 and compared the same with the immediately preceding two FYs, i.e., 2014-15 and 2015-16 and, thereafter, in para 6, concluded that the amount and percentage of cash sales during November, 2016 is not matching with the pattern and percentage of cash sales during the immediately preceding two financial periods especially during the month of November, 2015. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the present case are quite dissimilar and distinguishable from the facts of the case of Shri Atish Singla (supra). 12. In the case of Shri Lateef Abdul Mohd. Vs. ITO (supra), the issue of cash deposit to the bank account of the assessee during post demonetization period was decided in favour of the assessee relying on the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs. Agson Global (P) Ltd., 441 ITR 550 (Del) wherein the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit by the assessee during post demonetization period was deleted by holding that since the assessee placed material on record to prove that the cash deposits made with the bank were of the payer corresponding to the earlier two years which shows similar trend. But, in the present case, at the cost of repetition, I may again point out that the assessee did not find such trend while ITA No.1716/Del/2022 16 comparing the trend of cash sales and its percentage with the total sales when he compared the trend of sales for the present FY 2016-17 with the immediately preceding two financial periods. In such a situation, the AO invoked the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and rejected the book results of the assessee and, thereafter, made the impugned addition. Therefore, I safely conclude that the facts and circumstances of the judgements/orders relied on by the ld. Counsel of the assessee are not similar and identical with the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the benefit of the said judgements/orders are not available to the assessee in the present case. 13. In view of the foregoing, I reach to a logical conclusion that the AO was right in making the addition in the hands of the assessee and the ld.CIT(A) was also correct and justified in confirming the same. There is no ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the authorities below, therefore, I uphold the same. Resultantly, the grounds of the assessee being devoid of merits are dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.10.2022. Sd/- (C.M. GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 06 th October, 2022. dk ITA No.1716/Del/2022 17 Copy forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi