COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KAILASH JEWELLERY HOUSE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 613/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal . versus . KAILASH JEWELLERY HOUSE ..... Respondent Through: None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN . O R D E R 09.04.2010 The revenue is in appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 08.07.2009 passed in the revenue?s appeal being ITA No.3597/Del/2008 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. Before the Tribunal, the revenue had taken the ground that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in deleting the addition of an amount of Rs 24,58,400/- in respect of cash received in the bank account on the ground that the assessee had not established the nexus of such deposit to any source of income. 2. On examination of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we find that both the appellate authorities below have disagreed with the Assessing Officer and have deleted the said addition on the ground that the cash sales were duly recorded in the books and that they had found place in the profit and loss account. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had returned a finding that the stock and cash found at the time of search had been examined by the Assessing Officer and was compared with the stock and cash position as per books. The stock and cash position as per the books had been arrived at after the effect of the aforesaid cash sales. The stock position as well as the cash position as per the said books had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also noted that the appellant had furnished the complete set of books of accounts and the cash books and no discrepancy had been pointed out. The Assessing Officer had doubted the aforesaid sales as bogus and had made the aforesaid addition. However, the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal returned findings of fact to the contrary. 4. The Tribunal also noted that the departmental representative could not challenge the factual finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Nor could he advance any substantive argument in support of his appeal. The Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that the sum of Rs . . 24,58,400/- was credited in the sale account and had been duly included in the profit disclosed by the assessee in its return. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal observed that the cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. 5. The findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which are purely in the nature of the factual findings, do not require any interference and, in any event, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed. . BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J . . . V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 09, 2010 dutt . . 19