PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. AURA JEWELS

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, BMTC BUILDING, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)

The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [the Tribunal] in ITA.No.684/Bang/2023 in respect of the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The principal controversy before the Tribunal was regarding an addition of `6,61,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Sixty One Lakhs Only) made under Section 68 of the Act. 3. The respondent [Assessee] is engaged in the business of retail trading of jewelry, gold, silver and other ornaments. The Assessee had furnished its return of income for A.Y.2017-18, inter alia declaring gross receipts of `21.99 Crores. The same included cash sales amounting to `11,64,59,923/-. On examining the books of accounts, the Assessing Officer [AO] found that cash sales of `6,72,68,168/- were made on a single day, that is, on November 8, 2016 on the eve of declaration of demonetization of high value currency notes. The cash sales made on the single day amounted

The Assessee challenged the decision of the AO rejecting the invoices on the ground that they did not mention the PAN number and full name and address of the customers. The Assessee explained that the sales made to a customer were below `2,00,000/- and there was no requirement for the Assessee to mention the PAN number of the retail purchaser. The Assessee also explained that retail purchasers were reluctant to give their full details. Additionally, the Assessee also pointed out that invoices of cash sales in respect of other months (which were not in question) also did not include the full details of the names and addresses or PAN numbers of various customers. The CIT(A) examined the question whether the records duly authenticated the cash sales as claimed by the Assessee and accepted the Assessee's contentions. The CIT(A) found that the Assessee had duly explained its cash sales on the basis of its records and its stock statements. Accordingly, the addition of `6.61 Crores made by the AO under Section 68 of the act was deleted in terms of an order dated 27.03.2023. 6. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order dated 27.03.2023, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed in terms of the impugned order.

Both the appellate authorities namely, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have concurrently found that the Assessee had duly explained the cash receipts and had produced the books of accounts and records to establish that it had made cash sales as declared. The question whether the Assessee had in fact made sales in cash as declared is clearly a question of fact and this question has been answered in favour of the Assessee by concurrent findings of the learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal. 6. We note that the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are supported by cogent reasons and we are unable to accept that the said decision can be faulted as being perverse. 7. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.