GLOBAL EDUCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in passing a non-speaking order in gross violation of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Asst. Year –2017-18 - 2–

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in confirming addition of Rs. 14,09,800/- under section 68 of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts, in not appreciating that AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act.

Both, AO & CIT(A), have erred in passing the impugned orders without properly appreciating facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and documentary evidences available on record in the correct perspective. Such an act in in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the impugned order deserve to be quashed.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC of the Act.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.”

The brief facts of the case are that for the impugned assessment year 2017-18 the assessee had made cash deposits of ₹39,33,000/- during the demonetization period (9/11/2016 to 30/12/2016) in it’s bank account held with Kotak Mahindra Bank. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that that these deposits were sourced out of regular business sales and withdrawals from bank accounts, and that all such transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts and disclosed in the return of income. To verify the genuineness of these claims, the Assessing Officer examined past and current year sales figures, cash deposits, and the cash book maintaining by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the cash deposits in assessment year 2017-18 had significantly increased (₹61.77 lakhs) compared to the previous assessment year (₹2.85 lakhs), and that there was a sharp increase during the demonetization period. Similarly, the cash sales during April to November 2016 were ₹14,09,800/-, whereas there were no cash sales for the comparable period in the previous year. Further, month- Asst. Year –2017-18 - 3–

In appeal, CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to complete non-compliance by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) noted that during the appellate proceedings, despite being issued multiple notices under section 250 of the Act, the assessee failed to respond, nor did the assessee seek any adjournment and nor did the assessee file any written submissions or supporting evidence. The CIT(A) held that the burden of proof was on the assessee to rebut the AO's findings, which the assessee completely failed to do. Since the only material available was the assessment order and Form 35, and no grounds had been effectively argued by the assessee, the CIT(A) found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Asst. Year –2017-18 - 4–

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of non- appearance on part of the assessee. We have considered the facts on record and submissions made by the Counsel for the assessee. It is observed that during the relevant assessment year 2017-18, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹39,33,000/- during the demonetization period in its bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. The assessee claimed that the source of such deposits was regular business cash sales and cash withdrawals from bank accounts, and that all such transactions were duly recorded in its books of accounts. However, on scrutiny, the Assessing Officer noted several discrepancies including a disproportionate increase in cash deposits and cash on hand as compared to the previous year, absence of credit sales, non- maintenance of day-to-day stock records, and significant fluctuation in gross profit ratios across various assessment years. Accordingly, the AO rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act and treated the cash deposits of ₹39,33,000/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. In appeal, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on ex-parte basis due to complete non-compliance. Despite issuance of multiple notices under section 250 of the Act, the assessee failed to appear before Asst. Year –2017-18 - 5–

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 25/08/2025 (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/08/2025