O R D E R

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated

29.12.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds:-

“1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, under section 250 of the Act is so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

2. The appellant denies himself to be assessed at Rs.58,47,140/- as against the income of Rs. 6,51,400/- returned for the assessment year 2017-18 on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Rejection of books of accounts a) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the books of account of the appellant and confirming the addition of Rs.

51,95,740/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

b) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions, being the deposits for a part of the year, while adopting the returned income, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

c) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, once the books of account were rejected, the income had to be estimated on a best judgement method and a reasonable percentage of income alone, as prevailing in the industry, had to be considered as income, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

d) Without prejudice and not conceding that the rejection of the books of the appellant were bad in law, the learned CIT(A) has not provided an opportunity of hearing before rejecting the books of account, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 51,95,740/- as income of the appellant, without appreciating that the appellant has offered the entire sale as part of turnover, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the deposits were made out of known sources and accordingly, the entire addition ought to have been deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The authorities below failed to appreciate that neither of the provisions of section 69 of the act, are applicable, since already accounted in the books of the appellant and thus no addition ought to have been made, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The invocation of section 115BBE of the Act is also bad in law, since there was no instance of unexplained income, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernible from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal.

10. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered and the appellant shall be awarded cost in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of institution fees as part of the cost.”

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.03.2018 showing total income of Rs.6,51,400 after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.1,30,291. The assessee is a jeweller and running business in the proprietorship named as M/s. Anup Jewellers. The case was selected for scrutiny and on the reason of abnormal increase in cash deposit during demonetisation period as compared to average rate of cash deposit during pre- demonetisation. The assessee did not submit information as required by the AO, accordingly he issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act calling bank statements which were supplied. From the ba