ANUJ GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), FBD, FARIDABAD,HARYANA

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

2.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that cash deposits in the bank are from cash sales. The nature of assessee’s business is such that cash sales are usual part of the assessee’s routine business. The total turnover of the assessee including cash sales is to the tune of Rs.1,19,65,151/- the entire cash sales have been duly accounted in the books and same are audited under the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. The books of account of the assessee have been accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) without pointing any defect. The assessee has filed its return of income on the basis of audited books. If any addition is made on account of cash deposits in the bank it would tantamount to double addition. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shagun Jewellers vs. DCIT in for AY 2017-18 decided on 27.02.2025.

2.2. The ld. Counsel further submits that the assessee could not file documentary evidences before the AO as sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee. The assessee filed additional evidences before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A, to substantiate that cash deposits in the bank were out of cash sales. However, the CIT(A) without admitting additional evidences dismissed appeal of assessee.

for the reason that the assessee has not filed documentary evidences to substantiate, cash deposits are from business receipts/cash sales. The assessee has filed additional evidences under Rule 46A before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority without admitting additional evidences, upheld the addition made by the AO. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity to making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 12th day of March, 2026.