ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SURESHBHAI GAFULBHAI VALIYA, AHMEDABAD

The assessee is an individual filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 11.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,95,850/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify cash deposits. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and made addition of Rs. 1,53,91,432/- under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash deposits.

Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,91,343/- despite the fact that the assesse failed to furnish sufficient documents to establish the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction of the cash sales. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee failed to submit any cogent reason for cash withdrawals and deposit of same in the bank account.

The Ld. AR relied upon the order of CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee during the appellate proceedings have filed the details related to the cash deposits and the cash withdrawals in respect of its cash collection from customers from the embroidery work done by the assessee. The submissions before the CIT(A) is most specifically reproduced in Para 6.2.2 by the CIT(A) of the order dated 16.01.2025. The CIT(A) has called for the remand report and the same is reproduced in Para 6.2.3 of the said order. The said remand report clearly stated that the assessee submitted the copy of assessment order, cash book, the ITO vs. Sureshbhai Gafulbhai Valiya Asst.Year–2017-18 sample cash sale invoices as well as the copy of bank account statement alongwith copy of ledger account of customer application. The said details were not doubted by the Assessing Officer in his remand report and therefore, categorically the CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. There is no discrepancy pointed out by the Ld. DR in respect of these evidences and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue does not survive.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.