Premier Wholesaler Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that matter needs to be remanded back as assessee failed to furnish corroborative documentary evidence to prove cash sales during demonetization period and certain proofs were submitted only before the present tribunal.
Facts- AO noted that as per information available, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 53,13,000/- during demonetization period (09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016) on various dates in two bank accounts. AO was of the view that the assessee was not able to furnish corroborative documentary evidences to prove the cash sales made to parties were genuine and the stated to have been amount received from the debtors or advances received against goods sold were not genuine and therefore, the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period remained unexplained. Accordingly, AO made an addition of Rs. 53,13,000/- to the income of the assessee. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that there are certain apparent differences / discrepancies which are now noted by us from the assessment and appellate records placed before us for our consideration. While on one hand, the assessee has submitted before us that confirmation from debtors have been submitted before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings with respect to cash sales (out of which the cash has been deposited in the bank accounts during the demonetization period), whereas the Ld. D.R. has pointed out that in the statements of fact itself the assessee has submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that the confirmation from the debtors “would be” submitted during the course of appellate proceedings, which was ostensibly not done in the instant case. Further, we have observed that it is a disputed fact between the assessee and the Revenue, wherein Revenue is contending that the assessee has not filed original cash bills in relation to goods sold to customers in cash alongwith accompanying documents such as delivery challan for the impugned assessment year as well as the assessee has not produced details of item wise, quantity wise of monthly sales, purchases with opening and closing stock for relevant period. In view of the apparent discrepancies in facts which have been pointed out before us, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration and the assessee may furnish all corroborative evidences in support of it’s contention before Ld. CIT(A), during the course of appellate proceedings.
