Harisons Diamonds (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 998 (Del-Trib) D168128 IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M., & ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M. Harisons Diamonds (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ITA No. 1426/Del/2021, ITA No. 2012/Del/2021 23 February, 2024 Assessee by: GautamJain, Adv, Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Department by: Sapna Bhatia, Commissioner-Departmental Representative ORDER *N.K. Billaiya, A.M.* The above captioned cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are preferred against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 23, New Delhi dated 13-8-2021 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Since the underlying facts are common in the cross appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 1426/DEL/2021 (Assessees Appeal) 3. The grievances of the assessee read as under: 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in determining the income of the appellant company at Rs. 3.46.99,653 as against declared income at Rs. 15,07,573 in an appellate order passed dated 13-8-2021 us 250 of the Act. 2(i) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of cash sales to the extent of Rs. 3,25,52.833made during the period 1-10-2016 to 8-11-2016 and erroneously held to be unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act. (ii) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the approach adopted to assume and hold that some part of the cash sales for the period 01-10-2016 to 08-11-2016 represent unexplained cash credits is illegal, invalid and untenable. (iii) That while making the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary. wholly unjustified and therefore, unsustainable (iv) That the entire addition is based on whimsical assumptions, arbitrary inferences and overlooks the factual position on record and therefore, the same is invalid, illegal and hence unsustainable. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 998 (Del-Trib)

D168128

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH

N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M., & ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.

Harisons Diamonds (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

ITA No. 1426/Del/2021, ITA No. 2012/Del/2021

23 February, 2024

Assessee by: GautamJain, Adv, Shri Lalit Mohan, CA

Department by: Sapna Bhatia, Commissioner-Departmental Representative

ORDER

N.K. Billaiya, A.M.

The above captioned cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are preferred against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 23, New Delhi dated 13-8-2021 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18.

2. Since the underlying facts are common in the cross appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No. 1426/DEL/2021 (Assessees Appeal)

3. The grievances of the assessee read as under:

1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in determining the income of the appellant company at Rs. 3.46.99,653 as against declared income at Rs. 15,07,573 in an appellate order passed dated 13-8-2021 us 250 of the Act.

2(i) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of cash sales to the extent of Rs. 3,25,52.833made during the period 1-10-2016 to 8-11-2016 and erroneously held to be unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act.

(ii) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the approach adopted to assume and hold that some part of the cash sales for the period 01-10-2016 to 08-11-2016 represent unexplained cash credits is illegal, invalid and untenable.

(iii) That while making the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the factual substratum of the case, statutory provisions of law and as such, addition so made is highly misconceived, totally arbitrary. wholly unjustified and therefore, unsustainable

(iv) That the entire addition is based on whimsical assumptions, arbitrary inferences and overlooks the factual position on record and therefore, the same is invalid, illegal and hence unsustainable.