SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

The addition of Rs. 38,64,714/- made by the AO on these counts to the income of the appellant u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 and sustained by the Id. CIT(A) is wrong, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts and bad in law.

2. That the Id. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in confirming action of the Id. AO is charging addition of Rs. 38,64,714/- upheld vide ground no. 1 above u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961.

3. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.

The assessee is mainly engaged in the manufacturing and sales of Mawa, Paneer, ghee, lassi, etc. and earned income from business or profession.

After considering the replies filed by the assessee and details so made available ld. AO noticed that the assessee deposited Cash being Specified Bank Notes [SBNs] amounting to Rs. 80,02,000/- in bank account maintained by the assessee in HDFC bank. Since, these SBNs were banned by the Government of India by in accordance with the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 w.e.f. 09.11.2016 and the assessee deposited huge cash as SBNs of Rs. 80,02,000/- in the bank account, ld. AO asked the assessee to disclose the source of such cash deposits. The assessee was also asked to furnish the cash book for the FY 2016-17. On examination of the cash book for the FY 2016-17, various cash sales have been mentioned and on comparison of the cash sales for the FY 2015-16 it was found unreasonable and exceptionally excessive cash sales.On examination of the details of cash deposits being SBNs during demonetization period so tabulated above, ld. AO noted that that business or profession in general cause. In the instant case, the assessee is engaged in the business of mawa, paneer, ghee, etc. and in this business, exceptional increase in cash sales is not possible. Ld. AO also noted that a sudden increase of cash sales and cash deposits in the bank account as compared to last year was found suspicious as smell a rat and looking to the trend of business of the assessee, it has been found not in order. Then ld. AO went on comparison of the cash sales as well as cash deposits during the year under consideration with the previous year, while doing so he noted that Cash sales during the FY 2016-17 with Cash sales during the FY 2015-16, it has been surprisingly noticed that there is exceptional increase in cash sales, which is not possible for any business and business of the assessee. Similarly, on perusal of cash sales from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 and in the month of October 2016, there are boom in cash sales as compared to cash sales of last year. The percentage rate of growth of cash sales as compared to last year for the month of October is found @213.79% and during the period from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 is found @199.45%, which are exceptionally high and not possible to the business of the assessee. The cash sales shown by the assessee for the month of October, 2016 are Rs. 85,88,827/-, assessee as compared to cash sales shown by the assessee for the month of October, 2015 which are of Rs. 27,37,125/-. Thus, it is evident and self- explanatory that the assessee intentionally manipulated his books of accounts, i.e. sales book, purchases book, stock register, etc. for escaping from tax liability for its unaccounted cash being SBNs and under these circumstances, it has not been relied upon the books of accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration. On comparison of Cash deposited during the FY 2016-17 and Cash deposited during the FY 2015- 16, ld. AO noticed that in the FY 2015-16, the assessee regularly deposits bank notes so received from cash sales in the bank accounts on day-to-day basis and which is general modus-operandi of any business, which are based on the cash sales. Similarly, in the FY 2016-17, the assessee was also maintaining such modus-operandi of deposits bank notes so received from cash sales in the bank account on day-to-day basis up to September 2016. Even if, it assumes that the assessee made huge cash sales in the month of October 2016, then why the assessee did not deposit bank notes in the bank account, as up to September, 2016, the assessee was maintained modus-operandi for depositing day-to-day cash deposits in the bank account. It is surprisingly noticed that the assessee made huge cash Rs. 85,88,827/- and Rs. 15,22,000/-and did not deposit the same as well as brought forward bank notes in the bank accounts. Thus, it is evident that the assessee intentionally manipulated his books of accounts so as to adjust his unaccounted cash being SBNs in his regular books of accounts like an accommodation entry. It also establishes that the assessee maintained parallel unaccounted cash sales or any other business, which is running out of the books of accounts and regularly not offered the same for taxation. Since, the Government of India banned Bank notes having denominational value of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- and the assessee kept huge cash, which are out of the books of accounts, therefore, there is no option for the assessee except offering the same for taxation as unexplained money, which is to be taxed@60% plus @25% surcharge u/s 115BBE(1)(i) of the Act. Thus, escaping from the tax liability as stated above the assessee manipulated its books of accounts and shown exceptional cash sales. Ld. AO also went to observe that the average cash sales are concerned, it has been noticed that the average cash sales from April, 2016 to September, 2016 comes to Rs. 36,37,286/- [ 2,18,23,718 divided by 6] and in the month of October, 2016, the assessee shown cash sales of Rs. 85,88,827/-, which is exceptionally increased as compared to mawa, paneer and other milk products. Further, the average cash sales from January, 2017 to March, 2017 comes to Rs. 16,82,956/- [50,48,867/3] only and on compare with these cash sales, the cash sales for month of October, 2016 and 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 is found exceptionally increased. Thus, it is evident and concrete evidence that the assessee engaged unaccounted cash sales or other business, from which cash have been receiving by the assessee and from avoiding its tax liability, the assessee made accommodation entries in the garb of cash sale in its books of accounts. Thus, it can't be relied upon the books of accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration. So far as Cash withdrawal is concerned, the assessee withdrew cash including SBNs. Non-OHD and Non-SBNs from bank accounts amounting to Rs. 25,05,000/- only during the year under consideration, which is very low as compared to cash withdrawal in the last year. Thus, there is no question arises to cash deposits during the demonetization period are out of cash withdrawals. So far as Festival and Marriage season are concerned, the assessee took plea that the cash sales increased due to festival and marriage season, therefore, it is established facts that festival and marriage season comes to each and every year and on examination of cash sales for the last year, i.e.

Further, festival and marriage season did not come only in the month of October, it comes in various month, then why only cash sales are only exceptionally increased specially in the month of October, 2016. The contention of the assessee is completely not tenable as the assessee is only trying to distract from the facts of the case. Based on these discussion so recorded in the order of the assessment ld. AO noted the assessee was engaged in the parallel unaccounted cash sales or any other business, which is running out of the books of accounts and was not offered the same for taxation. Consequently, the assessee kept huge bank notes having denominational value of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- and later on the Government of India banned the said bank notes from 09.11.2016 and thus, the assessee has no option except either offer the same for taxation or made adjustment of unaccounted bank notes and the assessee did it in the garb of cash sales. In view of the above, the explanation about such cash, credits is not satisfactory and liable to be taxed u/s 68 of the Act. Ld. AO also noted that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposits being SBNs during the demonetisation period. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the ordinary course, it is human tendency that a person, who possesses a large amount of cash in hand, will deposit the the instant case, the assessee also have modus operandi to deposits cash on the day-to-day in the last year and also this year up to September. 2016.

Further, looking to the view of nature of business of the assessee, there is no question arises in increase in cash sales, being panic due to demonetisation at late night on 08.11.2019. Looking to the view of principle of natural justice as well as "Human Probability Test", the average cash sales are taken in to account for computing unexplained cash credits in its books of accounts. The average cash sales up to September, 2016 are of Rs. 36,37,286/- and cash sales for the month of October, 2016 are of Rs. 85,88,827/-, therefore, difference in such cash sales comes to Rs. 49,51,541/- was treated as unexplained cash credit in its books of account as the explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory. Ld. AO noted that the assessee declared amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- under PMGKY. So far as cash being SBNs deposits are concerned, the assessee deposited cash being SBNs during demonetization period in the bank account amounting to Rs. 80,02,000/-, therefore, looking to the view of principle of natural justice, the credit of difference amount between bogus cash sales and cash deposits being SBNs, which comes to Rs. 5,86,827/- [85,88,827 80,02,000], was given. Thus, credit of such declaration under PMGKY and comes to Rs. 38,64,714/-[49,51,541 less 5,00,000 less 5,86,827], which is liable to be taxed u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly completed the assessment.

In the light of overall facts of case, on perusal of appellant grounds of appeal, it is noticeable that appellant is contending the order of AO as bad in law as it involves assessing of sales as admitted in the books of accounts as unexplained cash credits by AO without justifying any such incorrectness in appellant sales and in view of the same such arbitrary order of AO as not maintainable, is the plea of the appellant. Further, in these GOA, appellant has contended that AO has erred in holding that the cash sales declared for the month of October 2016 as unexplained and thereby computing such unexplained cash credits as at Rs.38,64,714/- on the basis of average sales recorded up to September 2016 and by deducting amount declared under PMGKY as not acceptable as such workings of AO is based on misrepresentation of facts as per books of accounts and accordingly contended the order of AO as bad in law. Further in these GOA, appellant contended that AO treating the part of cash deposit as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of I.T Act as not maintainable to treat the same at special rate u/s.115BBE of 1.T Act and accordingly requested to delete the addition as not maintainable. Similarly. appellant contended such levy of interest u/s.234B of I.T Act as not maintainable as levied by AO. Precisely in all GOA, apparently, appellant is contending such computation of AO in arriving unexplained cash credit as per the provisions u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of I.T Act on the admitted sales as not maintainable and accordingly, request to delete the same. However on perusal of facts on records as brought out by AO in the assessment order it is clearly noticeable that, AO has critically analyzed appellant sales as admitted in the AY 2016-17 visa-a-visa AY 2015-16 month wise and has categorically established mathematically that there exists substantial increase in cash sales for the months of Sep, Oct, Nov 2016 and such increase rates are 33%, 213% and 199% respectively for all these three months and these cash sales cash on hand is claimed as available as on the date of demonetization Le.8.11.2016 so as to conveniently explain such huge cash deposits as attributable sales of the appellant and in view of the same, AO has held the cash deposit as not fully explainable. Further, as observed by AO, Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT apparently appellant is depositing cash sales as and when took place on the conclusion of the day in the respective bank accounts of the appellant and thereby there exists no cash on hand with the appellant / appellant cash book for earlier months prior to declaration of demonetization by the Govt. of India. That is to say, appellant is never holding cash on hand as per his regular practice of business/modus operendi as observed by AO for earlier AY 2015-16 as well as for earlier period of demonetization and in view of the same, AO has categorically concluded that such abnormal increase in cash sales during the months of Sep. Oct and up to 8th November 2016 clearly makes it a case of unexplainable nature of the appellant in explaining all the cash deposits with its supporting sale invoices / bills and consequent stock reconciliations as needed to explain the same to justify such abnormal increase in cash sales. Accordingly, AO computed such unexplained cash credits by duly giving credit to appellant average sales as computed scientifically by AO up to Sep 2016 as at Rs.36,37,286/- and also appellant admitted income on account of PMGKY scheme out of these total sales admitted for the month of Oct 2016 of Rs.85,88,827/-. Accordingly, AO computed such unexplained cash credit as at Rs.38,64,714/- as per arithmetic workings as appellant is unable to explain such abnormal increase in cash sales during the month of Oct 2016 which is just prior to declaration of demonetization on 8.11.2016 and thereby apparently there exists no infirmity in such workings of AO as attributable to unexplained cash credits out of such huge cash deposits of Rs.80,02,000/- made by appellant during the period of demonetization. Further, it is categorically noticeable that, appellant is indeed admitted such possibility of unexplained cash sales / cash credits to the extent of 5,00,000/- as appellant itself having declared such unaccounted sales/cash deposits as qualified for admission under PMGKY scheme envisaged for omissions and commissions of the period of demonetization by the Govt. of India. In the light of these facts, appellant mere contentions to hold that entire cash sales as admitted in appellant books of accounts as reconcilable and explainable without justifying such abnormal increase in cash sales particularly during the specific period prior to demonetization makes the same as apparently not justifiable as cash sales are not fully and conclusively reconcilable with such parties involved in cash sales with their supporting acknowledgements so as to reconcile such cash sales conclusively with such supporting evidences as needed to explain appellant contentions. Considering these apparent discrepancies involved in explaining cash sales conclusively and thereby unexplainable nature of cash sales is involved as reasoned by AO, it is clearly noticeable that, apparently there exists no infirmity in the order of AO in assessing a part of such cash deposits of demonetization period as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of I.T Act as reasoned by AO and accordingly appellant GOA to hold the order of AO as not maintainable as involving improper computation of such cash credit u/s.68 of 1.T Act is neither reasonable nor justifiable. Similarly, AO has appropriately invoked relevant provisions u/s.115BBE of I.T Act as applicable to such unexplained cash credits and thereby appellant mere plea to hold the same as not attracted is neither justifiable nor acceptable. Considering these facts of case as brought out by AO in the assessment order, keeping in view the appellant mere submissions without justifying / explaining the Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT findings of AO involving abnormal increase in cash sales just prior to demonetization declaration etc., the various contentions / inter-related/ multiple GOA as advanced by appellant to hold the order of OA as unjust is neither reasonable nor substantiated as per the provisions of I.T Act and in the result, appellant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable as per facts available on record on merits as reasoned and discussed supra. Accordingly, appellant appeal is dismissed as not maintainable as per facts available on record on merits as analyzed above read with assessment orders of AO.

6. Accordingly, appellant appeal against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of I.T Act dated 21.12.2019 for AY 2017-18, is dismissed on merits as not maintainable as per law as above.

7. In the result, appellant appeal against the assessment order dated 21.12.2019 for AY 2017-18, is dismissed.

5. Since the appeal so filed before the ld. CIT(A) was dismissed aggrieved with that order the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated herein above in para 2. Apropos to the grounds so raised ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission which reads as follow :

The above appeal has been filed by assessee firm against the appeal order dated 27-01-2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. CIT(A), Jaipur- 1/10896/2019-20. The assessee firm has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in upholding finding recorded by the ld. AO on account of deposit of cash in the bank account of the appellant firm that the appellant firm is allegedly engaged in unaccounted cash sales or other business, receipt of which is recorded in its books of accounts in the grab of cash sales (b) the ld CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the ld. AO that out of cash sale of Rs. 85,88,827/- declared by the appellant during demonetisation period in the month of October, 2016, there is allegedly unexplained cash credit to the extent of Rs. 49,51,541/-. The addition of Rs. 38,64,714/- made by the AO on these counts to the income of the appellant u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts and bad in law.

Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT 2. That the ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in confirming action of the ld. AO is charging addition of Rs. 38,64,714/- upheld vide ground no. 1 above u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961.

3. The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. Facts of the case The assessee is a firm carrying on business of selling Milk products i.e. Mawa, Paneer, ghee, Rabdi, curd, Lassi etc. It sells Mawa Paneer to sweet shops of city mainly on credit who bakes it for preparing sweets from mawa for their sale. The assessee also sales in cash said products to customers from its shop at Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur. It made its major purchases of Mawa, paneer etc. from M/s M.K. Enterprises a manufacturer of the said products and other products are prepared in house from milk purchased. It filed return of income for the year on 11-10-2017 declaring income of Rs. 20,63,620/-. The assessee deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 80,02,000/- during the demonetization period i.e. between 09-11-2016 to 31- 12-2016 in its bank in specified Bank Notes (SBNs) out of cash balance available as per audited cash book. Action of Ld. A.O. The case was selected in scrutiny and notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued by A.O. which assessee complied from time to time. The Ld. A.O. thereafter completed assessment of appellant u/s 143 (3) at an income of Rs. 59,28,034/- by making addition of Rs. 38,64,714/- in declared income by holding that said amount of cash deposited by assessee in its Bank A/c in SBNs during demonetization period is unexplained cash credits in its books of accounts which was shown in the grab of cash sales and so is to be added to the total income of assessee u/s 68 of the Act and taxed it @ 60% invoking provisions of section 115BBE. Order of CIT (A) The assessee firm filed appeal before CIT(A) against said assessment order and in course of hearing filed written submissions which reproduced in appeal order of CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in his order dated 27-01-2025 after considering reply filed by appellant confirmed the addition made by Ld. AO. The present appeal is against the addition so confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Ground wise submissions Ground No. (1) (a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in upholding finding recorded by the ld. AO on account of deposit of cash in the bank account of the appellant firm that the appellant firm is allegedly engaged in unaccounted cash sales or other business, receipt of which is recorded in its books of accounts in the grab of cash sales (b) the ld CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the ld. AO that out of cash sale of Rs. 85,88,827/- declared by the Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT appellant during demonetization period in the month of October, 2016, there is allegedly unexplained cash credit to the extent of Rs. 49,51,541/-. The addition of Rs. 38,64,714/- made by the AO on these counts to the income of the appellant u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts and bad in law. 1.1. The assessee deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 80,02,000/- during the demonetization period i.e. between 09-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 in its bank in specified Bank Notes (SBNs). The assessee during assessment proceedings claimed that said deposit of cash was out of daily cash sales of business and said sales as well as said cash deposit in Bank A/c is recorded in books of accounts and, in support produced said books of accounts alongwith sales invoices, bills, Bank statements & VAT Returns and also demonstrated correlation of such cash sales with purchases and stock of business. 1.2. The Ld. A.O. on that had made following observation:- (i) “On examination of the details of cash deposits being SBNs during demonetization period so tabulated above, it has been found that there is exceptional increase in cash sales, which is not possible for any business or profession in general cause. In the instant case, the assessee is engaged in the business of mawa, paneer, ghee, etc. and in this business, exceptional increase in cash sales are not possible. Sudden increase of cash sales and cash deposits in the bank account as compared to last year was found suspicious as smell a rat and looking to the trend of business of the assessee, it has been found not in order.” (ii) “On comparison of cash sales during the F.Y. 2016-17 with cash sales during the F.Y. 2015-16, it has been surprisingly noticed that there is exceptional increase in cash sales, which is not possible for any business and business of the assessee. Similarly, on perusal of cash sales from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 and in the month of October, 2016, there are boom in cash sales as compared to cash sales of last year. The percentage rate of growth of cash sales as compared to last year for the month of October is found @ 213.79% and during the period from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 is found @ 199.45%, which are exceptionally high and not possible to the business of the assessee. The cash sales shown by the assessee for the month of October, 2016 are of Rs. 85,88,827/-, which are exceptionally high and not possible for business of the assessee as compared to cash sales shown by the assessee for the month of October, 2015 which are of Rs. 27,37,125/-. Thus, it is evident and self explanatory that the assessee intentionally manipulated his books of accounts, i.e. sales book, purchases book, stock register, etc. for escaping from tax liability for its unaccounted cash being SBNs and under these circumstances, it has not been relied upon the books of accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration.”

1.3 The assessee on these observations of A.O. filed its explanations which are discussed in assessment order. The Ld. A.O. did not found the reply of assessee as acceptable for reasons given in assessment order. The said reasons given by A.O. did not pointed out any mistake of assessee in books of accounts, Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT sales invoices/bills issued as per law but are only comparison of cash sales of the year with that of earlier year. Thus these reasons are only suspicions of A.O. on cash sales of assessee based on surmises.

1.4 It is submitted that complete regular books of accounts, bills, vouchers and a day to day complete quantitative details have been maintained by assessee in its books of accounts. The said books of accounts are audited. A copy of audited statement of accounts alongwith complete quantitative details have been submitted alongwith the return of income. The cash sales transaction is recorded in regular books of accounts, sales are made out of stock-in-trade. It is thus submitted that assessee has maintained correct & complete books of accounts including complete quantity wise Stock details which are audited u/s 44AB of I. T. Act, 1961 and Tax Audit Report has also been filed which also do not report any adverse remark on accounts kept by assessee. Thus it cannot be held that assessee has not maintained correct and complete books of accounts. The A.O. in assessment also had accepted op. stock, purchases, gross profit and closing stock as declared by assessee. The A.O. has accepted declared closing stock which implies that outgo from op. stock and purchases has been accepted which can be on account of sales made by assessee and so out of declared sales some sales cannot be held as bogus or ingenuine sales. The rejection of declared sale by A.O. while accepting all component of Trading Account is thus contradictory and only on that basis rejection of books of accounts cannot be held valid in law. The Ld. A.O. is wrong in arbitrarily holding that the assessee is engaged in unaccounted cash sales or other business from which it receiving cash which is recorded in the books of accounts in the grab of cash sales. The above finding is wrong without appreciation of facts of the case of assessee, without looking to in case of cash sale vis a vis credit sales and total increase of sale in the financial year 2016-17 as compared to financial year 2015-16 and thus are simply based on guesswork and surmises which is not sustainable in law. In the case of CIT Vs Om Overseas (315 ITR 185), It was held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that the audited accounts could not have been rejected without pointing out any specific defect or deficiencies in the books of account maintained by the assessee. There is no dispute to the well settled legal proposition that the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee in the normal course of business, which are subject to audit as per the provisions of I T Act should be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable.

1.5 It is thus submitted that there is no justification in the case for holding by the Ld. A.O. that books of accounts of appellant cannot be relied which is unwarranted, based on misappreciation of facts and without any cogent material on record.

1.6 The sale of assessee depends on demand of sweets and other milk products in the market which suddenly increase on festivals, marriages and inflow Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT of tourists in city. The Ld. A.O. compared cash sale of assessee in the month of October, 2015 with cash sales in Oct. 2016 and of 1-11-2015 to 8-11-2015 with sale of 1-11-2016 to 8-11-2016 and gave finding that increase is 213.79% from Oct. 2015 as compared to October, 2016 and increase is 199.45% from 1-11-15 to 8-11-2015 as compared to 1-11-2016 to 8-11-2016 which is exceptionally high. The Ld. A.O. has only compared cash sales but ignored that credit sales of assessee in October 2016 as compared to October, 2015 also increased. In October, 2015 the credit sales were Rs. 22,27,392.50 while the same was in October 2016 is Rs. 1,13,89,249.55 i.e. increase by 411.32%. The total sale of the financial year 2015-16 was Rs. 5,30,28,008/- while the same for financial year 2016-17 was Rs. 7,53,77,323/- i.e. increase of 42% in total sale. The copy of Trading and P & L A/c for the F.Y. 2015-16 & F.Y. 2016-17 is submitted. Thus it is evident that sales of the assessee in year 2016-17 is increasing as compared to financial year 2015-16. The details of monthwise sales showing cash & credit sales of the F.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17, monthwise details of cash sales & cash deposit in the said years and details of 10 top parties from whom purchases were made & sales were made is submitted. The Ld. A.O. is thus wrong in arriving at the conclusion that rise in cash sales of assessee in October, 2016 is exceptionally high as compared to sales of October, 2015, while the facts are that in the month of October, 2016 not only cash sales were increased but credit sales were increased much more than cash sales in terms of percentage as well as value. The Ld. A.O. is thus wrong in holding that increase of cash sales of assessee in October, 2016 as compared to October, 2015 is exceptionally high. The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of AGSONS GLOBAL P LTD vs. ACIT (Appeal Nos. 3741 to 3746/Del/2019) have held that the addition being made on the sole ground of deviation in ratio of cash sales and cash deposits during the demonetization period with that of earlier period, is not proper and lawful. It is further submitted that:- (i) It is common knowledge that every year prices of Milk and milk products are increasing and so with the increase in prices the value of sales in terms of Rupees increases while quantity of sale remains same. In October, 2016 prices of milk and milk products were higher by 5% to 6% as compared to in 2015 and so sales in terms of value increased in Oct, 2016 and from 1-11-2016 to 08-11-2016 in comparison to sale in Oct. 2015 and from 1-11-2015 to 08-11-2015.

(ii) As already submitted that sale of Milk products/sweets etc. depends on market demand which suddenly increase on festivals, Marriages etc. In 2016 Diwali festival was from 28th day of October, 2016 to 1-11-2016 (‘Dhanteras on 28- 10-2016). While in 2015 Diwali festival was from 09-11-2015 to 13-11-2015 (Dhanteras on 09-11-2015). There are always very high sale of sweets in Diwali fortnight and that is the reason that in October, 2016 and from 1-11-2016 to 08-11- 2016 the sale of Mawa (main component of sweets) and paneer increased as compared to same period in the year 2015. Furthur in Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur from where assessee carries its business there are 3-4 more shops. A shop keeper doing major sales was found by authorities selling adulterated Mawa etc. in Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT 2015-16 and so shop was closed which resulted in increase in sales of assessee. The finding of Ld. A.O. that ‘Festival and Marriage season did not come only in the month of October, it come in various months then why only cash sales are only exceptionally increased in the month of October, 2016’ is not correct. The biggest festival and auspicious day for Hindus and public in general is Diwali festival days which was in October, 2016 and so the sale of assessee in October, 2016 increased and it is not only cash sales but credit sale was also increased that is the reason for high sale in October, 2016. Thus observation of A.O. in this respect is not correct.

(iii) The assessee purchases Mawa and Paneer mainly from M/s M.K. Enterprises, Jaipur a manufacturer of Mawa and Paneer. The sale in case of that firm and purchases from the said firm by assessee firm has been accepted in their respective assessments made. The Mawa, Paneer etc. are perishable commodity and has to be sold in a day and so when purchases by assessee has been accepted in assessment, the sale out of such purchases has also to be accepted moreso when purchase of a day is generally sold same day and so sales made are verifiable from corresponding purchases made same day in quantity as well as in value. The details of datewise purchases of Mawa with quantity and details of sales of Mawa with quantity for the month of October, 2015 & October, 2016 is submitted. Thus sales are fully verifiable and the same have to be accepted from business. Thus the allegation that the assessee was engaged in the parallel unaccounted cash sales or any other business, which is running out of the books of accounts and was not offered the same for taxation which is wrong and unwarranted in view of submissions made hereinabove. The Ld. A.O. is wrong in adopting average cash sales from April, 2016 to Sept. 2016 i.e. Rs. 36,37,286/- and adopting the same to determine cash sale of October, 2016 being same i.e. Rs. 36,37,286/- as against Rs. 85,88,827/- declared by assessee and thereby arriving at difference of Rs. 49,51,541/- and reducing therefrom Rs. 5,86,827/- (difference of cash sale Rs. 85,82,827/- minus SBNs deposited in Bank Rs. 80,02,000/-) and Rs. 5,00,000/- declared by assessee in PMGKY and adding the balance of Rs. 38,64,714/- as unexplained cash credit and taxed u/s 68 which is unwarranted, wrong and bad in law. The Ld. A.O. while arriving the said difference of Rs. 38,64,714/- has wrongly not considered that from 1-4-2016 onwards it made withdrawls of Rs. 25,05,000/- from its Bank A/c(s) in SBNs out of which withdrawls of Rs. 9,30,000/- was from April, 2016 to Sept. 2016 and as on 30-9-2016 cash balance was of Rs. 1,62,404.88. Further a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- was withdrawned from Banks on different dated of October, 2016. Thus out of said cash in hand as on 1-10-2016 and withdrawls made in October, 2016, the cash in SBNs which remained available on 08-11-2016 should be allowed as credit in SBNs deposited after 08- 11-2016 to 31-12-2016. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order held “So far as Cash withdrawal is concerned, the assessee withdrew cash including SBNs, Non-OHD and Non-SBNs from bank account amounting to Rs. 25,05,000/- only during the year under consideration, which is very low as compared to cash withdrawal in the Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT last year. Thus, there is no question arise to cash deposits during the demonetization period are out of cash withdrawals”. The above finding of A.O. is wrong in as much as the question is not ‘low cash withdrawals as compared to cash withdrawal of last year’ but was cash available out of said cash in hand on 1- 10-2016 & withdrawals made in Oct. 2016 which remained available which was deposited in the period 08-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 in Bank A/c. Thus Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in not considering the claim of assessee properly that deposit of SBNs of Rs. 10,03,465/- (Rs. 1,42,464.88 + Rs. 8,40,000) is out of earlier Bank withdrawals in SBNs made by assessee. In view of above facts of the case and submissions made it is evident that cash sales made by assessee are genuine and actually made and SBNs received therefrom was only deposited in its Bank A/c as truly and correctly recorded in its books of accounts during demonetization period 08-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 and Ld. A.O. is wrong in holding that out of cash deposited in said period in SBNs was unexplained cash credit to be taxed u/s 68 of I. T. Act, 1961.

Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT As cash receipts represent the sales which the assessee has rightly offered for taxation. We have gone through the trading account and find that there was sufficient stock to effect the sales and we do not find any defect in the stock as well as the sales. Since, the assessee has already admitted the sales as revenue receipt, there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE again. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kailash Jewellery House [2010 (4) TMI 1070 Delhi High Court] and Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 1110- Ahmedabad High Court] (iii) The case of CIT v/s. Kailash Jewellery House was decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 09.04.2010 wherein it was held that "In the facts of above case, cash of Rs.24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not established with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books on account of cash sales and was considered in the Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer had verified the stock and cash position as per books and had accepted the same. Complete books of account and cash book was submitted to the Assessing Officer and no discrepancy was pointed out. On this basis CIT(A) deleted the addition. Tribunal also observed that it is not in dispute that 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. Therefore, cash sales could not be treated as undisclosed income and no addition could be made once again in respect of the same. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department" (iv) Shobha Tomar Vs DCIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 61 (Jaipur-Trib.) – held notes – “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credit (Demonetization period) – Assessment year 2017-18 – Assessee was a medical practitioner – Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny for verification of cash deposit – During assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had deposited substantial amount of cash in bank which was in form of specified bank notes (SBN) during demonetization – On perusal of cash book, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not mentioned any narration regarding patients from whom consultation fees had been furnished nor there was any explanation with respect to sudden spike in cash deposit – Assessing Officer thus, considered deposits as unexplained income of assessee and made additions under section 68 – Whether, since cash was already considered as professional income, same could not be a base while making addition of income that had already been offered and substantiated with evidence and reflected in returned income by assessee – Held, yes – Whether thus, additions were to be deleted – held, yes.” (v) ITO vs Sahana Jewellery Exports (P.) Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 680 (Chennai – Trib.) Held that – Section 68, read with section 115BBE, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 114B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – Cash credit (Demonetization deposits) – Assessment Year 2017-18 – Assessee was engaged in business of trading in gold and jewellery – During demonetization, assessee had deposited substantial amount of cash in his bank accounts – Assessee claimed that source for cash deposits was out of advance received from customers Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT for gold scheme – Assessing Officer treated cash receipts as unexplained cash credit under section 68 on ground that assessee had failed to prove genuineness of credits found in his bank account – It was noted that assessee had filed necessary books of account, including cash book, sales register, sale bills, purchase details along with bills and stock details to prove that there was no discrepancy in books of account –Whether since assessee received trade advances in cash and same had been subsequently converted into sales by issuing sale bills, then, said trade advance could not be examined in light of provisions of section 68 – Held, yes. (vi) Hinima Atul Shah Vs ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 439 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) – head notes – “Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credit (Cash deposit) – Assessment year 2017-18 – Assessee had made cash deposit during demonetization period in her bank account – Assessing Officer held that cash sales shown by assessee during period of 10 days just before demonetization was not genuine but fabricated and after thought being colourable device used to show unaccounted cash as accounted one – Thus, Assessing Officer made addition of said amount under section 68 - It was noted that Assessing Officer had accepted transactions about purchase and sale of jewellery in gold and silver without raising any doubt regarding books of account, purchase and sale stock registers and bills produced by assessee – Further, cash transaction before demonetization period was also revealed by assessee as period before demonetization was also period of Diwali and that itself showed that why cash transaction took place in that particular period – Whether since stock register as well as family evidences produced by assessee were found to be genuine and cash transaction had also been proved by assessee being genuine transaction, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted – Held, yes.” (vii) CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. Tax Appeal No. 2471 (Guj) of 2009, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: - “Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not address the question of correctness of the CIT (Appeal)’s conclusion that amount of Rs. 70 lakhs represented the genuine export sale of assessee. The Tribunal however, upheld the deletion of Rs. 70 lakhs under section 68 of the Act observing that when the assessee had already offered sales realisation and such income is accepted by the Assessing Officer to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. In view of the above situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order”. (viii) Smt. Harshil Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Raj.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “23. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of account of the assessee would not attract Section 68 because the cash deposits becomes self-explanatory and such amounts were received by the assessee from the customers against Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT which the delivery of the vehicle was made to the customers. The question of sustaining the addition would not arise”. (ix) Asstt. CIT v. Dewas Soya Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 336/Ind/2012], wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has observed as under:- “The claim of the appellant that such addition resulted into double taxation of the same income in the same year is also acceptable because on one hand cost of the sales has been taxed (after deducting gross profit from same price ultimately credited to profit & loss account) and on the other hand amounts received from above parties has also been added u/s 68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 that “It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed. The assessee has already offered the sales for taxation hence the onus has been discharged by it and the same income cannot be taxed again”. Thus the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid case laws is that when the assessee has already shown the amount under the sales, meaning thereby, the amount generated in cash has already been offered for taxation, the same cannot be again taxed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and provisions of section 115BE (1) (a) cannot be invoked”. In view of the facts of the case, it is observed that the books of accounts have not been rejected U/S 145(3) as no discrepancy was found therein and the fact remains that the A.O. has accepted the cash sales as he accepted the sales, declared purchases and declared opening & closing stock and declared profits as well. The amount of cash sales is being reflected in its trading and profit and loss account. Thus assessing the said cash sales as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 means that the impugned sales had been taxed twice and therefore this would tantamount to double taxation of income, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, the action of the AO in holding that the appellant could not substantiate the increase in sales with documentary evidences is not based on correct appreciation of the facts. The Ld. A.O. is thus wrong and has erred in law in assessing the said amount of Rs. 38,64,714/- being cash sales holding it to that cash deposited in Bank A/c of assessee is nothing but the undisclosed income of assessee earned from undisclosed sources and taxing the said alleged undisclosed income and added in income of assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. The addition so made deserves to be deleted. Ground No. (2) That the ld. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in confirming action of the ld. AO is charging addition of Rs. 38,64,714/- upheld vide ground no. 1 above u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. In this regard, it is submitted that as explained in submission above, since no addition is deserved u/s 68 of the Act, hence Section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable on the taxable income of the appellant.

Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale vs. ACIT Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that the assessment order also undoubtedly speaks that no show cause notice for invoking the provision of section 115 BBE has been issued by the learned AO. As it is a settled legal mandatory requirement that the learned AO has to issue a specific show cause notice to this effect asking to the assessee as to why the income should not be taxed under the section 115BBE before doing so. As section 115BBE is charging of tax at the higher rate and it cannot be applied directly without giving any show cause notice when the issue are disputed that whether the higher rate of tax applicable or not on the alleged income or the nature of income falls u/s 68/69 and 115BBE. Hence, it was mandatory on the part of the ld. AO to issue show cause before invoking the provisions u/s115BBE, in absence of the same the rate cannot be charged more than to normal rate of tax, if the addition if any sustained. As now, it is a settled legal position that a person (assessee) is entitled to opportunity to show cause as to why not the income of the assessee is determined and charged or taxed in the manner as proposed by the Assessing Officer but in the instant case no such type of opportunity had been provided hence the addition so made may kindly be deleted. But the learned AO has failed to do so, which is against the principal of natural justice and against the law. Thus, how the learned AO can taxed the income under u/s 115BBE. Hence, the entire addition is liable to be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited Vs Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging Vs CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon Vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker). The submissions of the assessee are also drawing support from the Hon’ble Coordinate Jodhpur ITAT Bench, Jodhpur consisting Hon’ble Vice President Shri N.K. Saini and Hon’ble Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Gosain. The Hon’ble Bench held that “ the AO has not issued any show cause notice before invoking the provision of Sec. 115BBE for taxing the income on higher rate. It was mandatory on the part of the AO to issue the specific show cause notice to this effect asking to the assessee as to why the income should not be taxed under sec. 115BBE before doing so. It is very settled legal position that a person (assessee) is entitled to opportunity to show cause as to why not the income of the assessee is determined and charged or taxed in the manner as proposed by the A.O but in the instant case no such type of opportunity had been provided but the AO has failed to do so, which is against the principal of natural justice and against the law. This sect. 115BBE is charging of tax at the higher rate and it cannot be applied directly without giving any show cause notice when the issue are disputed that whether the higher rate of tax applicable or not on the alleged income or the nature of income falls u/s 68/69 and 115BBE. Hence, it was mandatory on the part of the AO to issue show cause before invoking the provisions u/s 115BBE, in absence of the same the rate cannot be charged more than to normal rate of tax, if the addition if any sustained”.

Ground No. (3)

The appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. General ground.

Name of Court Page No. Date of S. No. Name of Cases order 1 25-02-2025 1-111 Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited Vs. DCIT, ITAT Jaipur Bench Central Circle-2, Jaipur (ITA No. 648/JP/2024, A.Y. 2017-18)

2 01-07-2024 112-129 Shobha Tomar Vs. Deputy ITAT Jaipur Bench Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur (ITA No. 373/JP/2024,-AN. 2017-18) 3 Hinima Atul Shah Vs. Income Tax ITAT 04-06-2024 130-132 Officer (ITA No. 933/AHD/2023, Ahmedabad A.Y. 2017-18) Bench 4 Jaipur Vs. 15-12-2022 133-147 ACIT Central Circle-2, ITAT Jaipur Bench Shri Chandra Surana (ITA 166/JP/2022, A.Y. 2017-18) 5 ITAT 12-05-2021 148-153 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam Vs. Visakhapatnam Hirapanna Jewellers (ITA No. 253/VIZ/2020, Bench A.Y. 2017-18)

Thus, the addition so made by the ld. AO merely based on the arbitrary based on surmises and conjectures required to be quashed. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he supported that the estimate theory canvassed by the ld. AO and did not considered the detailed submission made by the assessee. Thus, ld. AR of the assessee relying on the various decision submitted that the addition sustained is required to be deleted.

Since both the grievance of the assessee relates to the deposit of cash into the bank account and thereby treating the part of the cash deposit not emanates from the cash sales recorded in the books and was treated engaged in the manufacturing and sales of Mawa, Paneer, ghee, lassi, etc. and earned income from business or profession. The case of the assessee was selected for under manual compulsory scrutiny criteria. The assessee filed the details in that proceeding as called for by the ld. AO.

After considering the replies filed by the assessee and details so made available ld. AO noticed that the assessee deposited cash being Specified Bank Notes [SBNs] amounting to Rs. 80,02,000/- in bank account maintained by the assessee in HDFC bank. As announced by the Government of India by in accordance with the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 w.e.f. 09.11.2016 the specified bank notes were banned from circulation and thereby the Government has given time to deposit those bank notes in the bank account, and nobody was allowed to accept those currency notes. As there was huge cash deposit of Rs. 80,02,000/- in the bank account, ld. AO asked the assessee to disclose the source of such cash deposits. The assessee was also asked to furnish the cash book for the FY 2016-17. On examination of the cash book for the FY 2016-17, various cash sales have been mentioned and on comparison of the cash sales for the F.Y. 2015-16 it was found unreasonable and exceptionally excessive cash sales. On examination of the details of cash AO noted that that there is exceptional increase in cash sales, which is not possible for any business or profession in general cause.

Record reveals that the assessee is engaged in the business of mawa, paneer, ghee, etc. and in this business, exceptional increase in cash sales was not considered as it was sudden increase of cash sales and cash deposits in the bank account as compared to last year was found suspicious. The ld. AO went on comparison of the cash sales as well as cash deposits during the year under consideration with the previous year, while doing so he noted that Cash sales during the FY 2016-17 with Cash sales during the FY 2015-16, it has been surprisingly noticed that there is exceptional increase in cash sales, which is not possible for any business and business of the assessee. Similarly, on perusal of cash sales from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 and in the month of October 2016, there is boom in cash sales as compared to cash sales of last year. The percentage rate of growth of cash sales as compared to last year for the month of October was found @213.79% and during the period from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 is found @199.45%, which was exceptionally high and not possible to the business of the assessee. The cash sales shown by the assessee for the month of October, 2016 are Rs. 85,88,827/-, which are exceptionally high sales shown by the assessee for the month of October 2015 which are of Rs. 27,37,125/-. Thus, ld. AO blamed that the assessee intentionally manipulated his books of accounts, i.e. sales book, purchases book, stock register, etc. for escaping from tax liability for its unaccounted cash being SBNs and under these circumstances, it has not been relied upon the books of accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration. Ld. AO noted even if, it assumes that the assessee made huge cash sales in the month of October 2016, then why the assessee did not deposit bank notes in the bank account, as up to September, 2016, the assessee was maintained modus-operandi for depositing day-to-day cash deposits in the bank account. It is surprisingly noticed that the assessee made huge cash sales in October 2016 and from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 amounting to Rs.

85,88,827/- and Rs. 15,22,000/-and did not deposit the same as well as brought forward bank notes in the bank accounts. Thus, it is evident that the assessee intentionally manipulated his books of accounts so as to adjust his unaccounted cash being SBNs in his regular books of accounts like an accommodation entry.

As the above finding of the ld. AO clearly spell out that it was not the case of the assessee that he has accepted the cash after the accounts of the assessee upto 08.11.2016 and that fact was neither rejected nor any contrary material placed on record by the ld. AO through ld. DR even though sufficient time was allowed as prayed by ld. DR even after the hearing was concluded. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the cash so deposited was out of the proceeds of sales and the same was in turn recorded after giving delivery to the goods. The cash sales so recorded was not reduced while computing the income. Thus, the ld. AO not disputed the cash sales recorded in the books of accounts. Thus, the cash sales proceeds so recorded cannot be considered as unexplained income of the assessee as held by our Rajasthan High Court while dealing with the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 in which it was held that “Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them”.

Thus, once the sales recorded in the regular books of accounts were not disputed by the ld. AO the proceeds of that sales again cannot be considered as unexplained credit as per provision of section 68 of the Act based on the decision as cited by the ld. AR of the assessee. Even otherwise the record reveals that the ld. AO accepted that period par sales books of accounts which are audited. The ld. AO also not reduced the sales already considered in the sale to that extent while making the addition u/s. 68 and that too taxed the same income twice.

In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration to the fact that the ld.AO considered the part of the sale of the same evidence as genuine and part of the same as not correct, this conclusion is purely based on the surmises and conjecture and cannot be considered. Thus, as is evident that the ld. AO though ld. DR when asked before us not brought anything as to why the same set of evidence partly sales is accepted and partly not, no submission advanced and therefore, once it is clearly evidence that the receipt is supported by the cash sales and that too before announcement of demonetization and that too on account festival same cannot be considered as not out of sale proceeds. It was also not the case of the revenue that the assessee stock records or that of the purchases are not correctly accounted. Thus, records clearly established that cash deposits emanates from cash sales and therefore, the same cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act. Based on these observations ground no. no. 1(a) and (1(b) are allowed. considered that sale and directed to delete the addition u/s. 68 there cannot be a case of revenue to charge the tax as per section 115BBE of the Act and thereby the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee becomes academic.

Ground no. 3 being general in nature does not require our finding. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/08/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/08/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 412/JP/2025) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत