RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

ITA 560/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Sh. Rajendra Agarwal against the order of the CIT(A), which upheld the assessment order adding Rs. 3,05,10,000 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was made on the basis that the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period were unexplained. The assessee contended that these were proceeds from cash sales recorded in his audited books. However, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) found the explanations and the supporting documents provided by the assessee to be unsatisfactory and unconvincing, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712361 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Durgaprasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC), Sumati Dayal v. CIT, 30 Taxman 39 (SC), CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath, (1969) 72 ITR 194, Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA RINES H
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH DHARNIDHARKA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal 137, Radha Damodar Ki Gali, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. cuke V. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACPPC5384G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Manish Dharnidharka, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/07/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER Per: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Appellant-assessee has challenged order dated 16.02.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), whereby his appeal filed against assessment order dated 30.12.2019, relating to the assessment year 2017-18, has been dismissed. 2. Vide above said assessment order, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,05,10,000/-, on the ground that the said amount was Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. deposited by him in bank, during demonetization period, but, he failed to disclose source of this income and to establish his claim that the said income was from cash sales and also part of the cash available with him. Said assessment order was made resorting to the provisions of Section 68 r.w.s. 1155BBE of the Act . It was held to be taxable @ 60% as per the said provisions. 3. Learned CIT(A) upheld the above said observations made by the Assessing Officer, and as a result dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. It may be mentioned here that the present appeal was instituted on 25.04.2024. Since then many adjournments were sought on behalf of the appellant, on one or the other ground. Ultimately, the appeal was listed for today, but, again adjournment was sought on behalf of the appellant. Vide separate order on even date, request for adjournment has been rejected. Accordingly, arguments have been advanced on merit. 6. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserved to be set aside, when the assessee had produced accounts books before the Assessing Officer and he had gone through the same. The contention is that the above said cash amount was the sale proceeds and entries regarding sales were made in the books of Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. accounts, which were audited, and as such, the assessment order deserves to be set aside. Discussion 7. Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in trade of bullion and silver. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee had deposited in his account, cash to the tune of Rs. 3,05,10,000/- during the period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in the form of Specified Bank Notes. When the assessee was called upon to furnish explanation in this regard, he submitted chart regarding cash deposit in the preceding two years. Having gone through the chart submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed as under:- “1. On perusal of the submission it is found that, the assessee cash deposited during the period of demonetization is approximately 6 times in comparison to same period in previous year. 2. The total cash deposit in the F.TY 2016-17 is also 3 times higher than the F.Y. 2015-16. 3. During the entire FY 2016-17, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 3,05,60,000/-, out of which Rs. 3,05,10,000/- has been deposited during demonetization only. The assessee has submitted that the source of cash deposit is cash sales during the year. This means that during the 2 months November and December assessee made the sales and deposited 85% of the cash, whereas during earlier months that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 50,000/- only. There is no logical justification for this.” Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. 8. In view of the above observations, the Assessing Officer is stated to have issued show cause notice to the assessee on 18.12.2019. The assessee replied the show cause notice by way of written submissions dated 21.12.2019. Said reply reads as under:- “1. Copy of stock register, purchase register, sale register is attached herewith. 2. It is humbly submitted that assessee has deposited Rs. 3.05 Crore after the Demonetization. The said cash belongs to the sale proceeds of the assessee. All the sale proceeds have been duly recorded in the Books of Accounts. Books of Accounts are also audited by the Chartered Accountant. The entire sale invoices are available with the assessee same has been enclosed your kind perusal. Proper entries have been recorded in the stock records of the assessee showing the outward of stock due to sale. Further we would like cite that- Further, consider the below facts with respect to the cash deposition into the Bank: All the cash deposited is received from the Sale proceeds of the Business. All the sales have been duly recorded in the Books of Accounts. All the sale invoice is available with the assessee. Proper entries have been recorded in the stock records of the assessee showing the outward of stock due to sale. As a business trend of the assessee was dealing in the trading of bullions and silver items, he deposits the cash in the Bank to the extent he needs to make the payment etc. There is not security threat to the assessee as he has very high security Gaudrej vault whereby all the jewellery and cash is safe. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. Showroom of the assessee was opened on the day of Demonetization and good number of customers visited on the showroom to purchase the items. Cash balance is available with the assessee in Cash Ledger. It was festive season of Diwali in the month of October as well as wedding season from November onwards. We have good sale during festival and wedding season. Without prejudice to the above, further it is humbly submitted that complete cash deposited cannot be treated as undisclosed income. Total amount has already been booked by the assessee as Sales in the Books of Accounts. Correspondingly, stock of the assessee has also been reduced. At worst, extra profit can be added in the books of accounts on account of sale made on just one day before of demonetization.\" 9. Having considered the reply, the Assessing Officer concluded that the amount of Rs. 3,05,10,000/- deposited by the assessee in the bank during the demonetization period, remained ED undisclosed income. In this regard, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons:- “1. The assessee has justified the source of cash deposits from cash sales and cash available. However on perusal of the cash book it was noticed that he has cash balance of Rs. 20,55,471/- only on 01.04.2016. 2. The assessee is operating his bank account regularly; therefore it is not possible that the assessee will accumulate such huge cash in hand only to deposit in the bank account. 3. Further on perusal of the cash book it is noticed that the assessee has made withdrawal of Rs. 16,31,000/- on 20.09.2016. If the assessee had huge cash balance in hand than why the assessee had made this withdrawal from the bank. 4. Further on perusal of the cash sale of the assessee, it is noticed that during the period of 1.4.2016 to 7.11.2016 cash sale is of Rs. 2,81,48,112/- however, the cash deposited in bank account is of Rs. 50,000/- only. If the assessee was genuinely making such high cash sales during the entire year then why did he deposit meager amount of 50,000/- in his bank account in more than 10 months? Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. Whereas, in the next 2 month i.e., the month of November and December the cash deposit is 3,05,10,000. It is unreasonable to belive that the assessee was accumulating Crores of cash without any purpose only to deposit it into his bank account later. 5. The sudden spike in cash sales during the year is unexplained given the fact that assessee has not disclosed the identity of persons to whom sales were made. Assessee has not submitted any details of the persons to whom sales were made in cash, no name, address, PAN No. has been given by the assessee. 6. The assessee has submitted that the assessee has not received cash from debtors. 7. The stock register submitted by the assessee is a composite one, it does not show the day to day movement of the stock of the assessee. Thus, it is not clear as to how much stock was available with the assessee on day to day basis to make such huge sales.” 10. When the matter came up before Learned CIT(A), it was submitted their on behalf of the appellant that the above said amount was actually sale proceeds, in proof of which transactions were recorded in the books of accounts, voucher/bills were maintained in addition to the stock register . 11. Learned CIT(A) took into consideration that even though the appellant claimed to have received money from customers towards sale proceeds, and deposited the same in his bank account, the assessee could not substantiate his claim, having failed to provide complete details of the purchasers i.e. name, address, PAN no., despite specifically directed by the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. 12. It may be mentioned here that on 22.07.2024, on behalf of the appellant a paper book consisting of 34 pages was submitted. These papers/documents were certified to be part and parcel of record of lower authorities. When the appellant was asked to specify the expression “lower authorities”, mentioned in the certificate appended to the paper book, on 17.02.2025, on behalf of the appellant, a paper book containing documents from page 35 to 186, came to be presented with certificate appended thereto that the said documents are supplementary evidence to prove the authenticity of the documents. 13. It may be mentioned here that no application has been filed on behalf of the appellant to place on record the additional evidence/supplementary evidence in the Form of second paper book . All these documents from page 35 to 186 sought to be produced, are stated to be copies of VAT invoices for the financial year 2016-17. 14. No such invoice was submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or Learned CIT(A). Rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 provides that parties to the appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence either orally or documentary before the Tribunal, but, if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or if the income tax authorities decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. assessee to adduce evidence, the Tribunal may allow for reasons to be recorded, such document to be produced or such evidence to be adduced. 15. This is not a case where it can be said that the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence. Rather, as per assessment order, sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee to produce the entire relevant material to explain deposit of cash during demonetization period. Vide show cause notice dated 18.12.2019, the assessee was specifically directed to furnish copies of bills, details of mode of payments for purchase as well as sales. In response, the assessee submitted copy of stock register, purchase register, and sale register. As regards, the sale invoices, the assessee simply responded that the same were available with him. The question is, in case sale invoices were available with the assessee, why did he withhold the same from the Assessing Officer and subsequently from Learned CIT(A). There is no explanation, in this regard. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. As noticed above, appellant-assessee has not furnished any application seeking permission from the Appellate Tribunal to produce additional evidence in the form of copy of VAT invoices from justifying there non production earlier before the Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A). Therefore, additional evidence, now sought to be produced before this Appellate Tribunal for the first time, and that too without any justification for their non production, same are not being taken on record. 16. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant, which needs to be considered is that the entire amount of sale proceeds having been shown in the books of account as income-turnover, the Assessing Officer should have taken into consideration that the entire sale proceed was not be subjected to tax, as it tantamount to subjecting the income of the assessee to double taxation. 17. As is available from the material on record, on 01.04.2016, the assessee had cash balance of Rs. 20,50,471/-. As claimed by the assessee, he has been operating his bank account regularly. However, the appellant has failed to explain as to why he accumulated huge cash in hand, only for subsequently being deposited in the bank account. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. As per record, on 20.09.2016, the appellant made withdrawals of Rs. 16.,31,000/-. In case the claim of the appellant regarding huge cash in hand is for the sake of arguments assumed to be correct, he has failed to explain as to what led him to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 16,31,000/- on 20.09.2016. As per record, during the period from 01.04.2016 to 07.11.2016, the assessee claimed to have done cash sale transactions to the tune of Rs. 2,81,48,112/-. Surprisingly, the assessee deposited in the bank account, in cash Rs. 50,000/- only. There is no explanation from the assessee as to why he did not deposit more amount from cash sales, as claimed by him, during the said period. Another surprising fact is that in the subsequent months i.e. of November and December, the appellant deposited in his bank account a sum of Rs. 3,05,10,333/-. Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. The appellant has failed to explain as to why he accumulated such huge cash even after Diwali festival, simply for subsequently being deposited in the bank. In this situation, Learned CIT(A) was justified in placing reliance on the decision in CIT v. Durgaprasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) and the decision n Sumati Dayal v. CIT, 30 Taxman 39 (SC), wherein test of human probability was discussed and applied in the given facts and circumstances. Here too, testing the given facts and circumstances on the touchstone of /test of human probability, it remains unexplained as to why the assessee, maintaining a regular bank account, kept such a huge cash. 18. As already noticed above, the assessee did not produce copy of sale invoices. He also failed to disclose identity of the customers/vendors. It has been observed by both the Revenue authorities that the stock details could not be verified as the stock register was a composite one. In other words, the stock register did not reflect day to day movement of items, so as to verify as to the availability of stock with the assessee on day to day basis, and to verify the factum of huge sales. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. In CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath, (1969) 72 ITR 194, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that where there is an unexplained cash credit, it is open to the ITO to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the ITO to show that the income is from any particular source; and further that it is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income it is income from a source which has already been taxed. At this stage, reference may be made to the following analysis of the sales and purchases as available in the impugned order. Same reads as under:- “Analysis of the Sales:- The appellant had deposited only 250,000 in the bank account in the first seven months of the financial year. If this cash is from the sales, this indicates that the cash sales made during this period were nearly of the same amount. However the appellant has claimed cash sales of rupees crores during this period. As per the details furnished by the appellant says of the appellant for the months of April to June 2016 are nil or zero. The total sales of the appellant as shown in claim are above 263 lakhs for the month of July, above 1 crore 13 lakhs for the month of August, above ₹ 77 lakhs of the month of September, above 48 lakhs the month of October, above 1 crore 46 lakhs for the month of November 2016. After the announcement of demonetisation the appellant has shown nil or zero sales for the months of December, January and February. From the sales account ledger furnished by the appellant it is seen that there are no sales during the year till 30th of June 2016. Further for the period 1st of July Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. 2016 to 8th of November 2016 the appellant has claimed only cash sales except two entry of credit sale on 1st of July 2016 and 5th of August 2016. Further from the sales account ledger it is also seen that for the period 1st of July 2016 to 6th of August, there is only one sale on the respective day whenever the cash sale is reflected and each such cash sale is less than rupees two lakhs and is above 1 lakhs 70,000. Further in the subsequent period the appellant has shown either two sales on each day or one sale on each day and hardly on any day there are more than two sales for the days on which Cash sale has been reflected. Again cach such cash sale is shown as less than rupees 2 lakhs and almost in all cases above 1 lakh 50,000. During the so claim the festive period of October 2016 appellant has only shown one such cash sale per day and only on three days of the month the appellant has shown 2 cash sales, on the days when ever cash sale has been claimed. Thus the argument of the appellant that the cash deposited in the period of demonetisation was out of sale made in the festival period of the Diwali is baseless and self-serving statement. In the year 2016 the Festival of Diwali was celebrated on 30th of October. The appellant has not shown any cash sale till the end of the financial year after the announcement of the date of the demonetisation which is another abnormality and is not as per human probabilities considering huge cash sales claimed in the earlier period. Analysis of the purchases:- The appellant has purchases of Rs. 74,54,670 from S S Impex on 25th of July 2016 however from the ledger account it is seen that the payment is shown to have been done to them through banking channel on 11 November 2016 of Rs. 500,000 and on 7 December 2016 of Rs. 23 lakhs. The payment was done in small part after the announcement of demonetisation. At the same time as in the bullion trade such a long period of credit can lead to implied interest cost for the seller at the market rate of average 12% per year whereas the profit ratio in the bullion trade is generally seen below 1%. No seller would incur or lose such high opportunity cost of interest interest only for earning meagre profit. Thus this purchase is not verified and is unreliable. Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. Similarly in the case of purchase shown by the appellant from the Rajendra Kumar Naveen Kumar, the purchases shown on 15th of August 2016 of rupees more than 69 lakhs. This date is a national holiday on which the markets remain close. Further no payment has been done by the appellant to the party till the end of the financial year. As discussed above the opportunity cost of the interest and the meagre profitability renders this purchase of the appellant also as unverified and unreliable. On the one hand the seller to the appellant did not bother about interest and the same time the appellant has claimed that the huge cash was lying with him and was getting increased regularly and not deposited in the bank and this show that even the appellant was not bothered about the interest income. The combined corollary is that both the purchases and sales are not reliable. The above finding is supported by the purchases shown by the appellant from another party which is Lawat Jewellers Private Limited. In case of purchases from this party purchases shown on 10% of November and the same amount of t 49 lakhs has been paid to the party on the same date. Further the purchase of rupees more than 1,50,00,000 has been shown on 11th of November 20to and the same amount has been paid on the same date without any single day of credit. Further with respect to purchase of more than 30 lakhs from the same party on 16th of November 2016 the payment is shown by the appellant one day in advance on 15th of November 2016. The Assessing Officer is not required to show the source of the money deposite in the bank account. There can be several possibilities. Such details are only in the possession of the assesse and onus lies on him. Where the assessee has failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of a credit entry in his books, and it is held that the relevant amount is the income of the assesse, it is not necessary for the department to locate its exact source CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). The explanation of the assessee is to be seen in totality and as a whole and the same can either be found satisfactory or not satisfactory as a whole. The story or the explanation of the assessee cannot be modified by the Ld. AO or appellate authority. It is possible that a single material fact or single material part of the explanation may render the entire explanation dis-believable or unsatisfactory. That is to be seen as per the facts and circumstances of the case and of the explanation. Explanation is to be examined for the availability of such exact Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. amount of physical cash/money with the assesse which was deposited in bank in demonetization period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 has observed as under: \"If there is an entry in the account books of the assessee which shows the receipt of a sum on conversion of high denomination notes tendered for conversion by the assessee himself, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked what the source of that money is and to prove that it does not bear the nature of income. The department is not at this stage required to prove anything. It can ask the assessee to produce any books of account or other documents or evidence pertinent to the explanation if one is furnished, and examine the evidence and the explanation. If the explanation shines that the receipt was not of an income nature, the department cannot act unreasonably and reject that explanation to hold that it was income. If, however, the explanation is unconvincing and one which deserves to be rejected, the department can reject and draw the inference that the amount represents income either from the sources already disclosed by the assessee or from some undisclosed source. The department does not then proceed on no evidence, because the fact that there was receipt of money is itself evidence against the assessee, There is thus, prima facie, evidence against the assessee which he fails to rebut, and being unrebutted, that evidence can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. The very words 'an undisclosed source' show that the disclosure must come from the assessee and not from the department.\" (emphasis supplied) It is further observed in this case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- In the present case, the assessee claimed that the high denomination notes were a part of the cash balance at the head-office. The Income-tax Office found that at first the cash on hand was said to be Rs. 1,62,022, but on scrutiny, it was found to be wrong Indeed, the assessee himself corrected it before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and stated there that the balance was Re 1.21,875. Ordinarily, this would have prima facte proved that the assessee might have kept a portion of this balance in high denomination notes. But the assessee failed to prove this balance. as books of the assessee did not contain entries in respect of banks. Though cash used to be received from banks and sent to the various places where works were carried on and vice versa. no central account of such transfers was disclosed. There was also no account of personal expenses of the Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. assessee and he had failed to prove why such large sums were kept on hand in one place when at each of the places where work was carried on, there were banks with which he had accounts. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also went into the question and found that on the same day when the high denomination notes were encashed, a sum of Rs. 45,000 was drawn by cheque. The next remittance immediately afterwards was of Rs. 16.000 to Bokaro, but Rs. 17,000 were withdrawn a few days before to meet this expense. A withdrawal of Rs. 8,000 way made a day later and Rs. 20,000 were withdrawn ten days later to finance the business. It appears that the money on hand (Rs. 45,000) was not touched at all, but on January 30, 1946, α further sum of Rs. 6,005 was withdrawn and not utilised, which made up the sum of Rs. 51,000 for which the high denomination notes were encashed. On these facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the high denomination notes represented not the cash balance but some other money which remained unexplained, and the Tribunal treated it as income from some undisclosed source. The High Court held on the above facts and circumstances that there were materials to show that Rs. 51,000 did not form part of the cash balance, and the source of money not having been satisfactorily proved, the department was justified in holding it to be the assessable income of the assessee from some undisclosed course. In this conclusion, the High Court was justified, regard being had to the principles we have explained above.\" (Emphasis Supplied) Some of the important factual-legal relevant questions emerging from the above judgement are as under:- Question of justification of keeping large sums on hand whereas the facility of withdrawing cash was available at the time and place it was required. The above is from the observation \"failed to prove why such large sums were kept on hand in one place when at each of the places where work was carried on, there were banks with which he had accounts\" Question of justification of withdrawing further sums when the earlier withdrawn sums were claimed by the assessee to be available in hand. The above is from the observation \"on the same day when the high denomination notes were encashed, a sum of Rs. 45,000 was drawn by cheque. The next remittance immediately afterwards was of Rs. 16,000 to Bokaro, but Rs. 17,000 Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. were withdrawn a few days before to meet this expense. A withdrawal of Rs. 8,000 was made a day later and Rs. 20,000 were withdrawn ten days later to finance the business. It appears that the money on hand (Rs. 45,000) was not touched at all, but on January 30, 1946, a further sum of Rs. 6,005 was withdrawn and not utilised. which made up the sum of Rs. 51,000 for which the high denomination notes were encashed\". Learned CIT(A) having discussed the books of accounts of the appellant, rejected the same under section 145(3) of the Act, the reason being that purchases and the sales composite stock register as well as the cash book were found to be unreliable. As a result, Learned CIT(A) was justified in reducing an amount of Rs.3,05,10,000/-from the sales reflected by the appellant and adding the same in the closing stock. 19. The above discussed facts, lead to the conclusion that the claim put forth by the appellant regarding cash deposit of Rs. 3,05,10,000/- during the demonetization period does not stand substantiated by cogent and convincing evidence. The Assessing Officer and Learned CIT(A) were in consonance with each other as regards the above facts, which remained unexplained on record. Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No. 560/JPR/2024 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. Result 20. As a result, in view of the discussion and findings, this appeal is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/07/2025 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sh. Rajendra Agarwal, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File ITA No.560/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "