Sh. Dinesh Kumar Soni vs. DCIT

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Soni, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Gold & Silver jewellery under the name & style M/s DPD Jewellers. For the year under consideration, the assessee declared total sales/turnover from the said business activities at Rs. 1,17,87,858/-. The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 58,00,000/- during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had inflated the sales made on account of demonetization. The AO considered five times of sales to the average sale as genuine and derived sales as acceptable for an amount of Rs. 19,32,490/-. The balance amount of Rs. 12,90,178/- was held as unexplained credit and added as income as per the provision of section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur, which was dismissed by the Commissioner. The assessee further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether addition u/s 68 is possible if no books of accounts are maintained?
• 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit on the basis of suspicion and surmises?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• ITO, Ward-43(1), New Delhi vs. Vinod Kumar Kansal

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Prakash Jewellers vs. ACIT 32 (2)

  Mumbai Bench ‘C’, Mumbai benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• M/s. JMK Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

• Income Tax Officer, New Delhi. Vs. Bimal Jewellers, Delhi.

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• ITO vs M/s Ranyal Traders Pvt. Ltd.

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• New Bhola Sons Jewellers Vs Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed