Anup Kumar Aggarwal Vs ACIT (Central) (ITAT Chandigarh)
Search Additions Largely Deleted: ITAT Chandigarh Restricts Unrecorded Sales to ₹5 Lakh, Deletes Cash & Jewellery Additions in Anup Kumar Aggarwal & Pooja Aggarwal (AY 2023-24)
The Chandigarh ‘B’ Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench delivered a common order in the cases of Shri Anup Kumar Aggarwal and Ms. Pooja Aggarwal for AY 2023-24, arising out of a search conducted on 04-11-2022 in the Himgiri Beverages group. The Tribunal granted substantial relief, deleting major additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
Unaccounted Sales / GP Addition (u/s 28)
The AO alleged unrecorded sales of ₹2.04 crore by comparing Tally data with POS counters and GST bill books, and applied an average GP rate of 22.62%, resulting in an addition of ₹46.19 lakh.
The ITAT accepted the assessee’s detailed reconciliation, holding that the differences were largely explained by:
- Double counting of restaurant POS sales (₹94.82 lakh),
- GST component included in POS but excluded in books (₹34.94 lakh),
- Stock transfers to sister concerns (₹46.40 lakh), and
- MRP vs cost difference on stock transfers (₹27.04 lakh).
Finding the reconciliation logical and unrebutted, the Tribunal held that there was no evidence of out-of-book sales. However, to plug any possible leakage, it restricted the addition to a lump sum of ₹5 lakh, deleting the balance.
Cash Found During Search (u/s 69A)
Cash of ₹42.81 lakh was found at the residence. The AO treated ₹22.27 lakh as unexplained and split the addition equally between husband and wife.
The ITAT noted that the assessee later produced updated cash books of three business concerns, showing cash-in-hand of ₹45.54 lakh as on the date of search. Since no defects were found in the books and the explanation was consistent with the search statement, the Tribunal held that the entire cash stood explained and deleted the additions in full in both hands.
Jewellery Addition (u/s 69A)
Jewellery (gold, diamond and silver) valued at about ₹1.89 crore was found. The AO added ₹94.44 lakh each in the hands of the assessee and his wife, rejecting explanations of stridhan, ancestral silver, purchase bills, gifts, and jewellery received on approval basis from JIA Diamonds.
The ITAT held that the AO rejected evidence without any independent enquiry. After considering:
