ITO WARD 20(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PUNEET JAYANTILAL JAIN, MUMBAI

This appeal by the Revenue has been preferred against order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:

1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in justified in deleting the addition of Rs.85,02,627/ deleting the addition of Rs.85,02,627/- made by the made by the AO who treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 AO who treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 AO who treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to provide the evidence that the assessee failed to provide the evidence that the assessee failed to provide the evidence relating to sales/delivery of gold to Shri. Dhiraj relating to sales/delivery of gold to Shr relating to sales/delivery of gold to Shr Parmar and the same was unexplained during the Parmar and the same was unexplained during the Parmar and the same was unexplained during the course of assessment proceedings? course of assessment proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 85,02,627/ deleting the addition of Rs. 85,02,627/- made by made by the AO who treated the AO who treated as unexplained cast credit u/s. as unexplained cast credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that Shri. Dhiraj Parmar has never dealt with that Shri. Dhiraj Parmar has never dealt with that Shri. Dhiraj Parmar has never dealt with trading in gold in his life time before demonetization trading in gold in his life time before demonetization trading in gold in his life time before demonetization period and the bills submitted by the assessee period and the bills submitted by the assessee period and the bills submitted by the assessee found to be non found to be non-genuine/suspicious by the AO ne/suspicious by the AO during assessment proceedings as the assessee is during assessment proceedings as the assessee is during assessment proceedings as the assessee is dependent on his son and has no source of income dependent on his son and has no source of income dependent on his son and has no source of income of its own? of its own? 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and On the facts and the circumstances of the case and On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in the case of Su in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR mati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR-80 and coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessce. arguments advanced by the assessce.