Ramzanali Asgar Khan Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
In Assessment Year 2009-10, total sales were Rs.38.35 Crores. Out of this Rs.38.35 Crores, the assessee claimed scrap sales at Rs.1.93 Crores. In another Assessment Year 2010-11, the total sales were Rs.50.63 Crores out of this assessee claimed scrap sales at Rs.12,00,000/-. During the course of assessment, the AO asked the details of buyers of these scrap sales. The assessee has not furnished any details with regard to whom the scrap sale was made. The entire scrap sale was recorded by the assessee as cash sales. Even in the cash sales, the assessee must have evidence with regard to name and address of the parties to whom the cash sales were made. Had it been genuine cash sales, the assessee would have produced name and address of the parties to whom it was sold. However, even on repeated requests by the AO, assessee failed to produce these details. That provoked the AO to make an addition of Rs.1.93 Crores under section 68 of the Act in Assessment Year 2009-10 and Rs.12,00,000/- in Assessment Year 2010-11. Even before us, assessee was not able to produce any details of the buyers to whom the scrap was sold. The assessee has also not produced any stock records for generation of the scraps from year to year. The assessee made an oral plea that these scraps were generated from year to year. The Bench has put a question with regard to details of generation of this scrap from year to year. But the learned AR expressed his inability to produce the same. In our opinion, the assessee is having no explanation with regard to generation of scraps and sale of the same. In our opinion, it is only a make-believe story so as to account the unaccounted cash generation by assessee. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These two appeals are filed by the assessee directed against different orders of CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 dated 21.01.2022. Since the issues in these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. The facts of the case are that in these Assessment Year, the assessee declared the sales as follows:
