KAID SAIFUDDIN BHURIWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2) (2), SURAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SMC) SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.814/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kaid Saifuddin Bhuriwala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F.P. No. 53/2, Plot No. 6, Udhna Ward-1(2)(2), Magdalla Road, Opp. Shanni Surat Mahadev Mandir, Surat-395007 [PAN No.AASPB9232D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Esmayeed Saherwala, CA Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR 21.04.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 22.04.2026 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 10.06.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18.

“(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. A.O. has erred in adding Rs.3040000/- being genuine sale proceeds as unexplained cash deposits u/s.68 of the Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has admitted in para 5.1 of order that all documentary evidences were produced in course of assessment and complete reply is also given to SCN issued by him addressing all the points but erred in concluding that cash credits were unexplained. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. A.O. is justified to apply provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act for A.Y.2017- 18. (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. A.O. has erred in not reducing Rs.3040,000/- from cash sales or from returned income and again taxed the income already offered for taxation at special rates U/S.115BBE

ITA No. 814/Srt/2025 Kaid Saifuddin Bhuriwala vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 - 2– of the Act. Ld. A.O. has further erred in not proving appeal effect to this ground already allowed by LD.C1TCA), NFAC, Delhi in his order dated 10/06/2025. (5) The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, replace or delete any grounds of Appeal on or before conclusion of the appeal. (6) The Appellant prays to quash the order of Ld. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), SURAT passed U/s.U3(3)of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 21.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 7,53,720/-. The case was selected under CASS for abnormal increase in cash deposit during the demonetization period. It was noticed by the Assessing Officer as per details available on record that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 30,40,000/- in his bank account maintained with Karur Vysya Bank during the demonetization period. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) along with questionnaire to the assessee on 21.08.2019 to explain the source of cash deposit along with supporting evidence. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that the cash deposits were out of cash in hand and from cash receipts from sales. Further notices u/s. 142(1) were issued seeking complete details about the source of cash deposit. Against this, the assessee submitted month-wise cash sale for F.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17. On perusal of the same, the Assessing Officer noticed that there was an abrupt increase in cash sale during the months of October 2016 as compared to the post and pre-demonetization period. Further on verification of cash book, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the same is fabricated and not genuine. Subsequently, a final show cause notice was issued on 17.12.2019 to the assessee. In response, the assessee submitted that he has maintained complete books of accounts and furnished list of names, full address

ITA No. 814/Srt/2025 Kaid Saifuddin Bhuriwala vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 - 3– and third party confirmation of sale parties and copies of bills/vouchers. However, the submissions of the assessee were not found to be satisfactory by the Assessing Officer as the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for abnormal increase in cash receipts for sales for the period under consideration. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of Rs. 30,40,000/- as unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

ITA No. 814/Srt/2025 Kaid Saifuddin Bhuriwala vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18 - 4–

balances in hand of the assessee was given before the CIT(A). The cash deposit made by the assessee was totally explained before both the authorities. The CIT(A) has totally ignored the evidences filed by the assessee. Thus, the addition does not sustain.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat