ITO, WARD 21(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. M/S RETRO FOOTWEARS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,23,97,000/- made on account of cash deposited during demonetisation period u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 ignoring the actual facts and circumstances of the 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without taken into account the malafide intention of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it has been found that the assessee company, in its return of income filed for the AY 2017-18, has mentioned wrong information regarding the bank account number as well as the amount of cash deposit. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without taken into account that sales, cash sales and cash deposits in banks are inconsistent, the total cash deposits in bank in Nov & Dee 2015 is at NIL whereas in Nov & Dec 2016, the total cash deposits in bank is at Rs. 1,23,97,000/-. VAT returns were also revised and sales were inflated and no justification was filed. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without taken into account that the assessee also failed to collect TCS on cash No cash were deposited in banks after 30.12.2016 or even before the period of demonetization. It is also noted that there was no trend of cash deposits in bank in preceding year, or in current year or in succeeding year. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without taken into account that no PANs were given / uploaded of the top 10 parties from whom purchase were made for verification. Details of month wise cash sales & cash deposits in banks from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 was not furnished /uploaded for verification. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,23,97,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 merely on the ground that the case of the assessee is covered by the recent decision of juri ictional High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Vs Agson Global (P.) Ltd. (441 ITR 550) wherein the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appal of the Revenue wherein assessee had deposited the cash into the bank account in SBN post Page 3 of 6

Brief facts of the case are that the company is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of footware. The assessee company e-filed its Return of Income on 02.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs.14,78,840/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny. Statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 10.08.2018 was issue and served upon the assessee. Thereafter notices u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire were issued vide to which the assessee company had replied to all notices. On perusal of ITS data of the assessee, it was revealed that the assessee had deposited cash during the demonetization period 9th November, 2016 to 30th December, 2016) amounting to Rs.1,23,97,000/-. Through notice u/s 142(1) the assessee was asked to file the detail of cash deposited in the bank accounts during the demonetization period i.e. 9.11.2016 to 31.12.2019 alongwith documentary evidence and source thereof. In response to this, the assessee submitted that Company has deposited cash from cash in hand which was Cash received from Sales made to Customers. The A.O noted on perusal of the cash details submitted by the assessee for the FY 2016-17 before and during demonetization period that there were abnormal rise in cash in hand. The assessee didn't supply any concrete reply to justify such huge increase in cash deposits during the year and demonetization period. The assessee also did not Page 4 of 6