JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), JHANDEWALAN V. MARBLE CITY INDIA LTD., DELHI

ITA 189/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) which had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The addition pertained to cash deposits made by Marble City India Ltd. during the demonetization period in India. The Assessing Officer had questioned the source of these deposits, suspecting them to be unexplained cash credits, as they occurred when old currency notes were demonetized and new ones were not yet available. The CIT(Appeals) found that these deposits were from legitimate business sales, a finding supported by the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312926 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. KAILASH JEWELLERY HOUSE, ACIT vs Hirapanna Jewellers, Smt. Charu Aggarwal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT, Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR BINDAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Unexplained cash credit; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"ITA No.189/Del/2024 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.189/Del/2024 िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year:2017-18 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Room No.269A, 2nd Floor, E-2, ARA, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Marble City India Ltd., A-30, 2nd Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. PAN No.AAACP6868J अपीलाथ\u0014 Appellant \u0016\u0017यथ\u0014/Respondent Revenue by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Ms. Rinky Sharma, AR सुनवाईक\bतारीख/ Date of hearing: 03.04.2025 उ\u000eोषणाक\bतारीख/Pronouncement on 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-27 dated 02.11.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made during demonetization period. 2. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer (AO) while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act noticed that the ITA No.189/Del/2024 2 assessee made cash deposits during demonetization period. The AO on verifying the details filed by the assessee and on verification of bank statement came to the conclusion that there is considerable increase in cash deposits during the demonetization period and assessee has offered no explanation with respect to the source of such funds when no new currency was available in the market and old currency is no more remained illegal tender. The AO also observed that the assessee has not properly explained the cash available with it for depositing in the bank account and accordingly addition of Rs.4,58,00,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition. 3. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the assessment year under consideration in fact the cash deposits in bank account which were all out of sale proceeds were in fact stood at 6.58 crores and the cash deposits into bank account during the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2016-17 stood at 7.09 crores. Ld. Counsel submits that all these cash deposits were out of regular sale proceeds of Marbel blacks. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the observation of the AO that there were no cash expenses by the ITA No.189/Del/2024 3 assessee is also incorrect since the assessee had shown cash expenses during April to November in FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 at Rs.31.39 lakhs and 66.80 lakhs respectively. He strongly supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the findings thereon. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 5. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We have perused the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) on analyzing the evidences furnished deleted the addition observing as under: - “5.3.1 The major contentions of the Id. AO while making the addition are as under: i. There is considerable increase in cash deposits during the demonetization period as during pre- demonetization period assessee has deposited the cash or Rs.2,00,29,500/- and whereas the cash deposited during the demonetization period was Rs.4,58,00,000/-. ii. On comparison with the details of cash deposit during the previous year i.e. F.Y. 2112-16 it is noted that assessee had made the cash deposit of Rs.1,19,29,674/- as compared to the cash deposit of Rs.4,58,00,000/- during the F.Y. 2016-17, which 25 lone during the demonetization period. iii. No cash expenditure claimed during the period from 01.04.2016 till 08.11.2016 reeds to be emphasized. It is hard to believe that no expenditure including petty ITA No.189/Del/2024 4 expenditure relevant to regular work has been made during the year specially during the said period. 5.3.2 With respect to first & second contentions, the Id. AO failed to understand that once demonetization scheme was announced on 8.11.2016, the old currency notes of Rs.500/- Rs.1000/- had not remained legal tender and the appellant had no option but to deposit the cash in hand as on 8.11.2016, to deposit in the bank account. Therefore, cash deposit in bank during demonetization period cannot be compared with the cash deposit during pre-demonetization period as well as corresponding period of previous year. With respect to third contention, the appellant has submitted the chart showing month wise cash expenses during pre-demonetization period and corresponding period of the previous year. The details are as under: Marble City India Limited Statement of Cash Expenses during April – October in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 Month wise Cash Expenses Month wise Cash Expenses April-16 8,17,411.26 April-15 3,25,150.00 May-16 7,49,498.00 May-15 3,44,210.00 June-16 8,63,146.00 June-15 3,22,551.00 July-16 8,83,178.00 July-15 3,26,540.00 August-16 7,13,726.00 August-15 4,55,210.00 September-16 11,12,795.00 September-15 4,10,250.00 October-16 15,40,828.00 October-15 9,55,112.00 66,80,582.26 31,39,023.00 From the above table, it can be observed that cash expenses are more than double vis-a-vis previous. Therefore, observation of the Id. AO that there were no cash expenses during pre-demonetization period is not found to be correct. 5.3.3 Further it is observed that the i. Sale turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration is 46.48 crores and in immediately preceding year i.e., A.Y. 2016-17 the turnover was 60.32 crores. ITA No.189/Del/2024 5 ii. Sales made by the assessee are including VAT and VAT returns are also submitted by the assessee within due time. iii. The accounts of the assessee are liable for audit under Section 44 AB of the Act and from year to year these audited reports have been obtained and submitted to the department along with return of income filed for respective years. iv. During A.Y. 2017-18 cash sales of the assessee have decreased to Rs.4,90,69,680/- as compared to cash sales for A.Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.6,17,96,976/- which is logical as after declaration of demonetization scheme by Govt. of India on 8.11.2016, the availability of cash had drastically reduced in the market and with the common person resulting into substantial decrease in cash sales after 8.11.2016 for remaining period of the AY 2017-18. v. Deposit of specified bank notes (SBN) in bank account had taken place on various dates of November, 2016. vi. There is no allegation from the Id. AO that stock was not available for sale or the purchases are bogus or the sales invoices are back dated. vii. With regard to cash sales to un-identifiable parties, it is important to understand that in case of over-the-counter cash sales, within the limit permissible by law in any trade or business, the customer cannot be forced to submit proof of identification. viii. Lastly, the id. AO could not identify any defect in sales register, stock register, purchase register and cash book particularly as on date of demonetization. Once the books of account for F.Y. 2016-17 are accepted by the Id. AO and the cash sales recorded therein were considered in arriving at the assessed income of the Assessee for the financial year under consideration, then treating the cash deposited in banks against such cash sales as undisclosed income of the Assessee is not sustainable. ITA No.189/Del/2024 6 5.4 Some important decisions of the Hon'ble High Court/ITAT in respect of cash deposits during demonetization are worth considering before arriving at any conclusion in me present case. 5.4.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. KAILASH JEWELLERY HOUSE in Appeal No. ITA 613/2010 has held that, \"3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had returned a finding that the stock and cash found at the time of search had been examined by the Assessing Officer and was compared with the stock and cash position as per books. The stock and cash position as per the books had been arrived at after the effect of the aforesaid cash sales. The stock position as well as the cash position as per the said books had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also noted that the appellant had furnished the complete set of books of accounts and the cash books and no discrepancy had been pointed out. The Assessing Officer had doubted the aforesaid sales as bogus and had made the aforesaid addition. However, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) as well as the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal returned findings of fact to the contrary. 4. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental representative could not challenge the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), nor could he advance any substantive argument in support of his appeal. The Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that the sum of Rs.24,58,400/- was credited in the sale account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. It is in these circumstances that, the Tribunal observed that the cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. 5. The-findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which are purely in the nature of the factual findings, do not require any ITA No.189/Del/2024 7 interference and, in any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.\" 5.4.2 The above decision of Delhi High Court has also been relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT Visakhapatanam in the case of ACIT vs Hirapanna Jewellers (I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020). The relevant part of the order is as under: \"4.1. The Ld. ClT(A) after having considered the submissions of the Ld. A.R found merit in the arguments of the assessee and agreed with the assessee's argument that due to unexpected announcement of demonetization on the night of 08.11.2016 the public largely purchased the jewellery as alternative for exchange of currency, and held since the sales were credited in the assessee's books of accounts as revenue receipt an offered for taxation, the same amount cannot be taxed again u/s 68 of the Act i unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decisions of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd (supra) of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The Ld. CIT(A) further observe that the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT an Durga Prasad More's case (supra) has no application in assessee's case. The Id. CIT(A) also observed that there was ample evidence to show that there were large number of public thronged the jewellery shops on 08/11/2016, and thus held that there is no justification for the AO to treat the sum of Rs.4,71,35,000/- as unexplained cash credit and accordingly deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the department is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. DR heavily placed reliance on the findings of the AO and the DDIT (Inv) which was discussed in detail in the assessment order and also discussed in this order in the earlier paragraphs. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the assessee has admitted the 'receipts as sales and offered ITA No.189/Del/2024 8 for taxation. The Assessing Officer made the addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit of the same amount which was accounted in the books as sales. In this regard, it is worthwhile to look into section 68 which reads as under: \"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. From the perusal of section 68, the sum found credited in the books of accounts for which tl assessee offers no explanation, the said sum is deemed to be income of the assessee. In tl instant case the assessee had explained the source as sales, produced the sale bills ar. admitted the same as revenue receipt. The assessee is engaged in the jewellery business and maintaining the regular stock registers. Both the DDIT (Inv.) and the AO have conducted the surveys on different dates, independently and no difference was found in the stock register or the stocks of the assessee. Purchases, sales and the Stock are interlinked and inseparable. Every purchase increases the stock and every sale decreases the stock. To disbelieve the sales either the assessee should not have the sufficient stocks in their possession or there must I defects in the stock registers/ stocks. Once there is no defect in the purchases and salt and the same are matching with inflow and the outflow of stock, there is no reason I disbelieve the sales. The assessing officer accepted the sales and the stocks. He has m disturbed the closing stock which has direct nexus with the sales. The movement of stock directly linked to the purchase and the sales. Audit report u/s 44AB, the financial statement furnished in paper book clearly shows the reduction of stock position ITA No.189/Del/2024 9 and matching with the sales which goes to say that the cash generated represent the sales. The assessee has furnished the trading account, P&L account in page No.7 of paper book and we observe that the reduction of stock is matching with the corresponding sales and the assessee has not declared the exorbitant profits. Though certain suspicious features were noticed by the AO as well as the DDIT (Inv.), both the authorities did not find any defects in the books of accounts and trading account, P&L account and the financial statements and failed to disprove the condition of the assessee. Suspicion however strong it may be, it should not be decided against the assessee without disproving the sales with tangible evidence. In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court decided the matter in favour of assessee on the ground that it was clear on the record that the assessee maintained the books of accounts according to the mercantile system and there was sufficient cash balance in its cash books and the books of account of the assessee were not challenged by the Assessing officer. If the entries in the books of accounts are genuine and the balance in cash is matching with the books, it can be said that the assessee has explained the nature and source of such deposit. In the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 258 (Pat.) Hon'ble Patna High court held as under: \"It is, in my view, a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the high denomination notes subsequently demonetized and even more, in the absence of any finding that the books of account of the assessee were not genuine, the source of income is well disclosed and ITA No.189/Del/2024 10 it cannot amount to any secreted profits within the meaning of the law.\" 7.2. In the instant case the assessee has established the sales with the bills and representing outgo of stocks. The sales were duly accounted for in the books of accounts and there were no abnormal profits. In spite of conducting the survey the AO did not find any defects in sales and the stock. Therefore, we do not find any reason to suspect the sales merely because of some routine observation of suspicious nature such as making sales of 270 bills in the span of 4 hours, non availability of KYC documents for sales, non writing of tag of the jewellery to the sale bills, non-availability of CCTV footage for huge rush of public etc. The contention of the assessee that due to demonetization, the public became panic and the cash available with them in old denomination notes becomes illegal from 09.11.2016 and made the investment in jewellery, thereby thronged the jewellery shops appear to be reasonable and supported by the newspaper clippings such as The Tribune, The Hindu etc. It is observed from the newspaper clippings that there was undue rush in various jewellery shops immediately after announcement of demonetization through the country. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts and the circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. We have gone through the trading account and find that there was sufficient stock to effect the sales and we do not find any defect in the stock as well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Jewellery House (Supra) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra), Hence, we do t see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. ClT(A) and the same is upheld.\" ITA No.189/Del/2024 11 5.4.3 The above decisions have also been relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh the case of Smt. Charu Aggarwal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2022] 14 taxmann.com 588 (Chandigarh - Trib.). The relevant part of the order is as under: \"10.1 In the present case the Department has not brought any material on record substantiate that the amount received by the assessee by selling the jewellery/goods out of the opening stock and the purchases was utilized elsewhere and not for depositing in the Ban Account. 10.2 In the instant case the opening stock, purchases and the closing stock has not been doubted, no inflated purchases were found or suppressed sales were noticed during the course of search held on 12-4-2017 i.e.; just after the closing year relevant to the assessment yea under consideration. It is also not a case that the assessee was not selling the stock/jewellery through exhibition which is clear from the figures given in para 18 of the impugned order, which revealed that the percentage increase in sales in the month of exhibition as compared to the preceding month was 114.99% and 118.26% in the month of March 2014 and July 2011 respectively while in the year under consideration the percentage increase was only 62.88% in the month of October 2016. The assessee explained before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the chart for various assessment years which had been reproduced at page no. 65 to 67 of the impugned order, in the said chart it has been shown that the cash sales in the month of October 2016 i.e.; period under consideration was 92% while in the preceding year it was 95% in April 2014, 93% in May 2015, 94% in June 2015, 93% in July 2015, 92% in July 2016. So it is not a case that in the month of October 2016 only the cash sales were more. It is also noticed that the cash sales in October 2016 was the same as was in July 2016, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee made more sales in cash during the period just before demonetization in the month October 2016, rather the cash sales were more in different months of the preceding year where there was no demonetization. It is ITA No.189/Del/2024 12 also noticed that the GP rate shown by the assessee for the year under consideration was 12.21% 'which was comparable 'with the preceding year 2016-17 at 12.72% which shows that there was a small decline in the GP rate for the year under consideration in comparison to the earlier year, however in the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015-16 the G.P. rate was at 16.62% and 13.47% respectively which shows that there was a consistent declining trend in the G.P. rate which occurred due to increase in the sales which were at Rs. 3.04 crores, Rs. 9.46 crores, Rs. 10.68 crores and Rs. 12.83 crores for the A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively which also shows that due to increase in turnover the G.P rate declined, so, it cannot be said that the cash sales made by the assessee during the pre demonetization period i.e; October 2016 resulted in extraordinary fall in the G.P. rate. 10.3 In the instant case the assessee maintained the proper books of account in regular course of business which were duly audited by the independent Chartered Accountant under section 44AB of the Act, all the sales & purchases and stocks were recorded in the books of account which had not been doubted by the AO. The sales shown by the assessee had been accepted by VAT/Sales Tax Department, the book result shown by the assessee were in the same line as had been accepted by the Department in the preceding years, the cash sales made by the assessee had been credited in the books of account and reduction in the stock has not been doubted, even during the course of search just after the closing of the year under consideration, neither excess nor shortage of stock was found in the stock register maintained by the assessee, the identity of the purchasers to whom cash sales had been made was disclosed in the sale bills where the name, address and PAN was mentioned. It is also not a case that there was sudden spurt in the sale only in the month of October 2016 as the chart furnished by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) clearly revealed that the cash sales were on higher side in another months of different preceding years. The AO made the addition on the basis of difference in the cash sales from 01-10-2016 to 29-10- ITA No.189/Del/2024 13 2016, only on this basis that the said difference was there in the computer and the pen-drive found from the residential premises of the part time accountant of the assessee but no opportunity to cross examine the said accountant was given to the assessee and moreover, no specific defect was pointed out in the proper books of account maintained by the assessee in the regular course of business and z: wing is brought on record to substantiate that the sales from 01-10-2016 to 29-10- 2016 were not made, out of the existing stock available with the assessee. In the present case the assessee explained that the exhibitions were held in every year and the sales were normally higher in certain month and that in the month of October 2016 the cash sales was on the higher side as lots of festivals like Diwali, Dhanteras, Bhaiya Duj and Karwa Chauth etc. fell in that period. The said explanation cannot be brushed aside considering the trend of the society in India wherein people make the purchases of jewellery during the festive season. 10.5 In the present case also the assessee was maintaining complete stock tally, the sales were recorded in the regular books of accounts and the amount was deposited in the bank account out of the sale proceeds, therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 10.8 Similarly the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Lakshmi Rice Mills (supra) held as under: - “It is a fundamental principle governing the taxation of any undisclosed income or secreted profits that the income or the profits as such must find sufficient explanation at the hands of the assessee. If the balance at hand on the relevant date is sufficient to cover the value of the high denomination notes subsequently demonetized and even more, in the absence of any finding that the books of account of the assessee were not genuine, the source of income is well disclosed and it cannot amount to any secreted profits within the meaning of the law. What has to be disclosed and established is the source of the income or the receipt of ITA No.189/Del/2024 14 money, not the source of the receipt of the high denomination notes which were legal tender at the relevant time.” 10.11 In the present case also the opening stock, purchases & sales and closing stock, declared by the assessee has not been doubted, the sales were made by the assessee out of the opening stock and purchases and the resultant closing stock has been accepted, the sales had not been disturbed either by the AO or by the sales tax/VAT Department and even there was no difference in the quantum figures of the stock at the time of search on 12/04/2017, therefore, the sales made by the assessee out of the existing stock were sufficient to explain the deposit of cash [obtained from realization of the sales) in the bank account and cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. 10.12 On an identical issue the Coordinate Bench of the IT AT Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hirapanna Jewellers (supra) held as under: ……. ………. 10.13 In the present case also the cash deposited post demonetization by the assessee was out of the cash sales which had been accepted by the Sales Tax/VAT Department and not doubted by the AO, there was sufficient stock available with the assessee to make cash sales and there was festive season in the month of October 2016 prior to the making of the cash deposit in the bank account out of the sales. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to orders by the various Hon'ble High Courts and the Coordinate Benches of the IT AT, we are of the view that the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified, accordingly the same is deleted.\" 5.5 In view of the above discussion and judicial decisions, the addition of Rs.4,58,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE on account of unexplained cash deposits is not found to be sustainable and therefore same is deleted and these grounds of appeal are hereby allowed.” ITA No.189/Del/2024 15 6. The observations and findings given by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in para 5.3.3 clearly demonstrates the contention of the assessee that all the cash deposits were out of sale proceeds. It is the finding of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that during the AY 2017-18 cash sales of the assessee have in fact decreased to Rs.4,90,69,680/- has compared to cash sales for the AY 2016-17 amounting to Rs.6,17,96,976/- and after declaration of demonetization scheme by the Government of India on 08.11.2016 the availability of cash had drastically reduced in the market and it resulted into substantial decrease into cash sales after 08.11.2016 for remaining period of the AY 2017-18. It is also the finding of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that the turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration stood at 46.48 crores and in the immediately preceding AY i.e. 2016-17 the turnover was 60.32 crores and the sales are including VAT and the sales for which the VAT returns were also submitted by the assessee within due time. The books of the assessee were also audited under 44AB, the deposits into bank account were made on various dates in November, 2016, there is no allegation from the AO that stock was not available for sale or the purchases are bogus or the sale invoices are back dated. It is also the finding of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that with regard to cash sales the unidentifiable parties it is important ITA No.189/Del/2024 16 to understand that in case of over the counter sales within the limit permissible by law in any trade or business the customer cannot be forced to submit the proof of identification. The AO could not identify any defect in sales register, stock register, purchase register and cash book particularly as on the date of demonetization. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that once the books f accounts are accepted by the AOO and the cash sales recorded therein were considered in arriving at assessed income of the assessee then treating the cash deposited in banks against such cash sales as undisclosed income of the assessee is not justifiable. None of these findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) were rebutted by the Revenue. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.04.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. ITA No.189/Del/2024 17 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "