Deepak Agarwal vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 57

1.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- made by the learned Assessing Officer with regards to the cash deposits made by the appellant in its book of accounts during the financial year under appeal by treating the same as alleged to be unexplained cash credits in the book of the appellant.

2.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard and without considering the request of adjournment filed by the appellant and thus, the appellate order passed by the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be quashed being in violation of the principle of natural justice.

3.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- without appreciating the fact that the total cash deposit made by the appellant in his bank account during the year under appeal were only Rs.2,29,84,120/- ( for which separate application u/s 154 of the Act have been filed) and not Rs.5,65,14,032/- and that out of the cash deposit of Rs.2,29,84,120/- cash deposited in old notes during the demonetization period was only Rs.17,25,000/- which is comparable to the cash deposits made by the appellant in the preceding previous year and also with the preceding months of the financial under appeal.

4.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while sustaining the aforesaid addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- as alleged to be explained cash credits have failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant is in the business of resale of ginger in Azadpur Mandi as Kacha Adhitya wherein most of the sale were in cash which have been accepted in past and that the cash deposits during the year under appeal were only out of cash sales and cash in hand available with the appellant. has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/-

5.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while sustaining the aforesaid addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- have failed to appreciate the fact that due to the nature of business of the appellant, there have been regular cash deposits in the books accounts of the appellant not only during the demonetization period or in the months preceding or succeeding the demonetization period but also during the immediately preceding financial year and that the addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- only on the basis of cash deposits made during demonetization being excessive as compared to the deposits in the previous periods without brining out any other adverse material is bad in law and liable to be deleted.

6.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case by sustaining an addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- in hurried and haste manner without appreciating the facts that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings before the learned Assessing Officer had filed various documents and details in support of cash deposit of Rs.5,65,14,032/- made by the appellant during the demonetization period such as cash book, bank statements, comparative details of cash deposit made by the appellant during the year under appeal and in the preceding financial years etc. to which the learned Assessing Officer did not give any cognizance and thus the assessment order passed without giving adequate consideration to the reply of the appellant is against the principles of natural justice.

7.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while making the aforesaid addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- have further failed to appreciate the fact that though the addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- was made by the learned Assessing Officer by treating the sales and cash in hand balance as unexplained cash credits in the books maintained in the regular course of business but at the same time has accepted the trading results which is evident from the fact that the addition have been made only on the returned income which includes business income from the aforesaid business of resale of ginger and thus the cash deposited in the bank account against sales cannot be treated as undisclosed income without brining any credible evidence in support of such allegation.

8.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,65,14,032/- u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts that the addition has already resulted into double taxation of the same amount once in the form of cash sales already included in the business receipts as declared by the appellant and again by way of unexplained cash credit at higher rate specified u/s 115BBE of the Act.

9.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case by sustaining an arbitrary addition by the learned Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act and enlarging the ambit of section 68 of the Act to create a deeming fiction to tax and sum already created and offered to tax as income.

10.

That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining an addition of the Act in the case of the appellant without appreciating that provisions of section 68 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case since the Appellant has already accounted for income represented by cash deposited in the bank and therefore, same cannot be considered to be undisclosed income in terms of Section 68 of the Act.

11.

That the appellant assails his right to file additional ground(s) of appeal., if required and add or amend /delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.