आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में , हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच , हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad , , श्री विजय पाल राि माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.849/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21)

The Assistant Commissioner Vs. P. Manohar Lal Jewellers and of Income-Tax, Exporters, Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad.

Hyderabad.

PAN : AEFP3883G (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, Assessee C.A. & Shri Y. Ratnakar, Represented by Advocate.

राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Department Represented by CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 08.12.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated

03.07.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under :

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by not granting opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the course of appeal proceedings, under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not considering that the burden of proof to establish that the expenditures claimed have been expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is on the assessee by furnishing necessary and supporting evidence.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts in granting relief of addition made towards disallowance of business promotion expenses considering that the names of the customers, addresses and contact details were provided by the assessee to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings whereas only names and discount /gift amounts were provided to the Assessing Officer.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts in granting relief of addition made towards disallowance of business promotion expenses as well as shortage of stock on the basis that no third party enquiries / verification was carried out without considering the fact that the assessee did not provide sufficient and adequate information for carrying out the same.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief of addition made on account of shortage of stock said to be resulting out of manufacturing and melting losses without appreciating the fact that the vouchers and ledgers furnished are from the assessee's own computerized books of accounts which is not corroborated with record or bill or voucher containing the other party signatures or acknowledgements.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief in respect of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2)(b) without considering the fact that the evidence furnished by the assessee is not proper and sufficient.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in granting relief on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account before making the disallowances whereas rejection of books of accounts are generally made when entries in respect of transactions are altogether omitted or incorrect or where there is inherent lacuna in the system of accounting and in the case of the assessee, disallowances made were for non-furnishing of necessary evidence in respect of certain expenditures claimed. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that, assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of trading in jewellers under the name and style of “M/s. P. Manohar Lal Jewellers and Exporters”, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 on 09.02.2021, declaring total inco