ACIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MIDDLETON ROW vs. MANJUSHREE MAHESHWARY, KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA �ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट�य एवं �ी �द�प कुमार चौबे, �या�यक सद�य के सम� [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 2294/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Circle-32(1), Kolkata Vs. Manjushree Maheshwary

(PAN: AEUPM 3275 P) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 15.06.2026 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 10.07.2026 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the Appellant/ Shri P. K. Himat Sinkhka, AR �नधा�रती क� ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR राज�व क� ओर से

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.07.2025 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the revenue is barred by limitation by 10 days. At the time of hearing the Ld. D.R explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. A.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find

2 I.T.A. No.2294/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manjushree Maheshwary that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal in the following paras.

“6.2 I have carefully considered the statement of facts, the grounds of appeal, the detailed submissions filed during the appeal proceedings and the contents of the impugned order. Grounds no. 1 to 4 all relate to the addition u/s 68 of Rs.95,51,281/- and are taken up together for adjudication. The AO had asked for details and source of cash deposited during demonetization. In response, the appellant submitted that cash deposits were out of sale

3 I.T.A. No.2294/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manjushree Maheshwary proceeds and furnished a month-wise break of cash sales upto 8th Nov 2016. The AO noted that while the average monthly cash sales during the period April to October stood at Rs.6,24,225/-, there were abnormally high cash sales of Rs. 97,17,742/- reflected during the period 1st to 8th Nov 2016. The AO stated that going by the monthly average cash sales,the figure of cash sales during the period 1st to Ath Nov 2016 which could be considered as acceptable was only Rs. 168 480/- The difference between the actual cash sales shown by the appellant and the average cash sales as per trends in the pre-demonetization months of Rs. 95.51.281/-(9717742 less 166460) was held to be bogus fabricated and back dated, in order to bring unaccounted money into the cash book to facilitate deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period. 6.3 The appellant states in her submissions that the sale transactions are genuine. She maintains regular books of accounts. She is running the distributorship for the entire West Bengal for the well-known "Orient brand of fans. The amounts deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period represented sale proceeds. She had opening cash balance as on 9.11.2016 of Rs.97,51,611.72/- accumulated out of cash sales till 8.11.2016, cash sales memos were generated from ERP software system, on which VAT was charged and paid to the government. VAT returns were duly filed. There was sufficient stock to justify the sales made upto 8.11.2016. Total sales in the month of November 2016 stood at Rs. 1,99,78,778/-, out of which cash payment was Rs. 97,17,742/-, whereas cheque payment stood at Rs. 1,20,88,856/- The appellant had furnished the cash book, stock register, sales register and purchase register as well as receipts issued by the depots of the selling company, where the purchased goods were stored by the principal company after paying excise. Some sample bills of transporters were also furnished to the AO for sales effected in November 2016. 2016. 6.4 It is seen that the sole reason for disbelieving the appellant's claim that cash deposited during demonetization emanated from sales is the AO's observation that against cash sales of Rs. 43,69,578/- in the period April-Oct 2016, cash sales during the period 1st to 8th Nov was abnormally high, the figure being 97,17,742/-. Thus the AO held that the sales were fabricated and bogus. While an abnormal figure of cash sales could be a starting point for investigation into whether the sales shown are genuine or not, in the face of such overwhelming evidence produced by the appellant, this suspicion is not enough to conclude that the sales are bogus. The AO has not pointed out any specific anomaly or discrepancy in the sales bills, purchase bills, depot receipts, transporter evidence, stock register etc. The AO has stated that PAN of the purchasers were not provided but the appellant was not required to obtain the PANs as the sale did not cross the figure mandated for obtaining PAN of purchaser. In such a scenario, without any specific evidence to indicate bogus or fabricated billing, there is no ground for holding that the cash sales effected during 1st to 8th Nov 2016 were fabricated and bogus. Hence the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 95,51,251/- is hereby deleted. Ground no. 1 to 4 are allowed.” 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that the assessee has undisputedly deposited cash during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 95,51,251/-. The AO added the same on the ground that during the demonetization period the sale of the assessee has shot up abnormally and therefore treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Pertinent to state that the said cash sales were duly disclosed by the assessee in the books of account and was offered to tax in the return of income. Therefore, the AO by treating the same as

4 I.T.A. No.2294/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manjushree Maheshwary unexplained cash credit and adding the same to the income of the assessee has resulted into double taxation which is not permissible in the law. In our opinion, the AO has taken the income as per return and added the amount of cash deposit during demonetization which is totally wrong and cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A) duly appreciated the fact correctly and recorded a finding that AO has not pointed out any specific anomaly and discrepancy in the books of accounts. The only objection raised by the AO is that PAN of the purchasers were not provided however was submitted and proved before us that the furnishing of PAN from purchasers was not required as the sakes were below the specified limit. In our opinion, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is a very reasoned and speaking order. Besides the case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:

i) Joginder Kaur vs ITO (2024) 169 taxmann.com 90(Amritsar) ii) Jaspal Singh Sehgal vs ITO, 47 ITR (T) 193 (Mum) Ajaya Data vs ACIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 308 (Jaipur) iii)

Since the facts of the case are materially same as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in the above case. Therefore, respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. We also note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted any additional evidences in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules and therefore ,we do not find any merit in the contention of the revenue. Consequently the appeal of the revenue is dismissed by upholding the appellate order. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 10th July, 2026 SM, Sr. PS

5 I.T.A. No.2294/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manjushree Maheshwary

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- ACIT, Circle-32(1), Kolkata 2. Respondent – Manjushree Maheshwary, 233/5, A.J. C. Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata