Smt. Neelam Gupta vs Income Tax Officer

“1.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred both in law and, on learned Income Tax Officer, Ward-1. Narnaul of the appellant at facts in upholding the determination of income made by the Rs. 1,44,60,420/- in an order of assessment dated 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act.

2.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred both in law and on facts in unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant during upholding an addition made of Rs. 1,39,95,000/- representing alleged the period of demonetization and brought to tax under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.

2.1

That, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer having accepted they cash sales and taxed income thereon could not by any stretch of imagination either legally or logically hold that cash deposited is unexplained and taxable as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act.

2.2

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate that once the sales are duly recorded in the books of accounts and have been made out of stock available in the books of accounts then both logically and legally, such sales could not be separately assessed to tax as bogus sales and unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

2.3

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition by relying upon irrelevant and, extraneous consideration, particularly when books of accounts out of stock available with the appellant could not be regarded as unexplained deposits by disregarding the factual matrix/evidence tendered by the appellant.

2.4

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that once the purchases declared in the books of accounts were duly accepted then no subjective assumption and presumption could be made a basis to subjective assumption and presumption could be made a basis to assume, allege and conclude that sales made out of such purchases were unexplained money under section 68 of the Act.

2.5

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both Officer that assessee has manipulated books of account to adjust his in law and on facts in upholding the finding of the learned Assessing undisclosed money and further invocation of section 145(3) of the Act is so misconceived, misplaced and unsustainable.

3.

That without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, even otherwise, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in holding that amount deposited in the bank by the appellant is taxable as income under section 68 of the Act and thereafter computed the demand in accordance with the rates specified in section 115BBE of the Act as amended by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016.

4.

That the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is not in accordance with CBDT notification dated 23.6.2017 vide F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II and therefore order of assessment is illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio.

5.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 35,67,300 u/s 234B of the Act which is not leviable on the facts of the appellant.

It is therefore, prayed that, that addition made and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted and appeal of the appellant be allowed.”