Yogesh Kumar U.S. ORDER
Yogesh Kumar U.S., Member (J)
1. The appeal in ITA No. 1597/Del/2022 by Revenue is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)", for short], dated 31/03/2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18 and the assessee filed Cross Objection No. 131/Del/2022 by supporting the order of the CIT(A).
2. The Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue are as under:
"1. The Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,89,52,097/- under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Whether, the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in law in deleting the additions made under the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and treating cash deposit as sales, when assessee during the course of assessment proceedings failed to provide any justification for difference in cash sales of AY 2017-18 from AY 2016-17 and AY 2018-19.
3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in concluding that AO did not bring any material on record against assessee in respect of cash sales which was deposited by the assessee in the bank, when assessee itself is non cooperative during the course of assessment and filed partial reply during the course of assessment proceedings.
4. Whether Ld. CIT (A) is correct in concluding that books of accounts was accepted by the AO, when assessing officer specifically mentioned in the assessment order that month wise cash sales figures is more than the other FYS.
5. The appellant contends that he may be allowed to add, amend, alter, forgo any of the grounds at the time of hearing.
6. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another.
3. The Grounds of Cross Objection of the assessee are as under:-
"1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.3,89,52,097/- made by Ld. AO on cash deposited in its bank account by holding as under:-
• That once the assessing officer accepts the books of accounts of the appellant and the entries in the books of accounts are matched, there is no case for making the addition as bogus sales.
• That there were sufficient stocks with the appellant to meet the sales and there were sufficient purchases to support the stocks.
• That not taking the address when there is rush and pressure on the sales men is understandable. So, a lapse of not taking full details of customers which is not mandatory under the law cannot be any import in drawing adverse conclusion against the sales made, when all other parameters like purchases, stock register, sufficiency of stock for sales made are accepted.
• That the entries pertaining to cash sales and corresponding bank accounts have been duly reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant.
• That the Books of accounts of the appellant have not been doubted by the assessing officer u/s 145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
• That the cash receipts represent the sales which the appellant has already offered for taxation.
• That there is no case for making the addition u/s 68 and tax the same u/s 115BBE again.
2. That the cross objector craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the ground(s) of cross objection before or at the time of hearing.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing, export and retail sale of jewellery, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 at a total income of Rs.19,27,857-. Assessee's case was selected for the scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2........