##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

DR. B.R.R. KUMAR VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.2375/AHD/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-2018)

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Vaddoara

Room No. 607, 6th Floor Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007, Gujarat ………….

Appellant Vs

P Maneklal Soni & Co.

Near Shah Tiles Godhra Road Dahod Dahod-389151, Gujarat

[PAN:AADFM9703F] …………. Respondent

Appearance For the Appellant/ Department : Shri Abhijit, Sr DR For the Respondent/ Assessee : Shri Mehul K Patel,

Date Conclusion of hearing : 16.06.2026 Pronouncement of order : 14.09.2026

O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the Order, dated 23/09/2025, passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-12 Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 16/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3)of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2017-2018.

2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of INR. 1,23,56,000/- made being unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating that addition was made on account of absence of supporting

ITA No.2375/AHD/2026 Assessment Year2017-2018

evidences of cash sale and after considering the Assessee's previous sale pattern, cash deposit trend and other discrepancies and inconsistencies brought out by the Assessing Officer in the

assessment order.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.

CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of INR. 1,23,56,000/-u/s 69A without appreciating that timing and quantum of sharp rise in the cash sale, ie. 53.34% of entire year's sales, during three preceding days before demonetization are not found to stand the test of human probabilities i.e. preponderance of probabilities which is

applicable for Income Tax proceedings.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of INR. 1,23,56,000/-u/s 69A and accepting the Assessee's unexplained money as cash sale without appreciating that Assessee has not submitted any sale bill for verification and sample bills of the Assessee, submit by another Assessee during his assessment proceedings, lack details of

purchasers such as PAN, Addressee etc.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a partnership firm, filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 21/09/2017 declaring total income of INR.91,020/-. The return filed by the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had made following cash deposits (a) INR.46,91,000/- in bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda, (b) INR.33,65,000/- in bank account maintained with State Bank of India and (c) INR.43,00,000/- in bank account maintained with ICICI Bank. Since, the aforesaid aggregate cash deposits of INR.1,23,56,000/- were made during demonetization period, notice was issued under Section 133(6) of the Act to the respective banks for obtaining the bank statements vide notice dated 06/12/2019. The Assessee was asked to provide explanation regarding the aforesaid cash deposits. In response, the Assessee vide reply dated 13/12/2019 stating that the source of cash deposits were cash sales made by the Assessee during the relevant period. In support the Assessee filed cash book and list/ledger of sales. The Assessing Officer was not convinced about the veracity of the documents furnished by the Assessee and, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that the Assessee had manipulated

2

ITA No.2375/AHD/2026 Assessment Year2017-2018

the records by not disclosing true and correct facts. Thereafter