IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A. Nos. 21/PAN/2024 & S A.5/PAN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 )

Assessee by Shri.Pramod Vaidhya.AR Revenue by Shri.Vimalrajperiyagounden..Sr.DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Hearing 27.03.2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the NFAC Delhi/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3)r.w.s147 and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is engaged in the business of jewellery and notice u/sec148 of the Act was issued. Further in compliance to notice u/sec142(1) of the Act, the assesse has filed the return of income on 12.01.2018 for the A.Y.2017-18 disclosing a total income of Rs.12,82,110/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data, found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the bank accounts during the demonetization period and the A.O has issued notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act and the assessee has submitted the details and information. Whereas the A.O found that the assesse has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.21,00,500/- in the bank accounts in the F.Y.2016-17 and explanations were called to substantiate the deposits and there was no proper compliance and further the assessing officer has dealt on the jewellery business transactions and VAT returns in respect of sales and estimated profit@8% of the turnover. Finally the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and made addition (i) income as per the provisions of section44AD of the Act of Rs.18,44,198/- and (ii) cash deposits u/sec69A of the Act of Rs19,50,100/-and assessed the total income of Rs.37,95,200/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) r.w.s147 of the Act dated

29.09.2021.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts, findings of the AO and submissions of the assesse but has confirmed the action of the Assessing officer and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the A.O overlooking the facts and submissions of the assessee in the proceedings. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the evidences were not examined by the lower authorities and the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. u/sec44AD and u/sec69A of the Act as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules with the separate statements showing RD and URD purchases during F.Y.2016-17, date wise purchase statement and sample copies of sales invoices which could not be submitted before the lower authorities. Further the evidences play a important role in decision making in the adjudicating p