+ Ita 31/2024 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi v. V L Jewellers

$~41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 31/2024PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI - 10..... AppellantThrough:Mr.Abhishek Maratha,Mr.Parth Sarval and Ms.NupurSharma, Advs. versus V L JEWELLERS ..... RespondentThrough:Mr.S.Krishnan, Adv. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMARKAURAV O R D E R % 11.01.2024 CM APPL. 1878/2024(Condonation of delay in filing the presentappeal) Thisisanapplicationfiledbytheappellantseekingcondonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 38 days infiling the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. -CM APPL. 1879/2024(Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal) Thisisanapplicationfiledbytheappellantseekingcondonation of delay of 35 days in re-filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 35 days inre-filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. ITA 31/2024 1.Having heard learned counsels for parties, we find that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] on a due consideration ofthe facts has come to the following conclusion:- "24. The principle laid down by the above decisions squarelyapplies to the facts of the assessee's case. The Ld. Pr.CIT in orderto hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to theinterest of the Revenue should make enquiries himself pointing outthe error or omission on the part of the Assessing Officer inconducting the enquiries. On a reading of the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT it is observed that no such exercise has been done by theLd. Pr.CIT before concluding that the order passed by theAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of theRevenue. The assessee has furnished explanations along with allevidences before the Ld. Pr.CIT and the Ld. Pr.CIT failed to pointout the deficiencies in conducting the enquiries by the AssessingOfficer. The Ld. Pr.CIT in the order observes that the assessee hasfailed to prove the source of cash deposits of Rs.65, 92,000/- in itsbank account during the period of demonetization, neither theAssessing Officer had asked for the source of cash deposits duringthe assessment proceedings nor had assessee provided any detailsignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer specifically called forthe details in the specified format as per the CBDT Circular toexamine the cash deposits made by the assessee and the assesseehad given a detailed reply explaining the circumstances and thesources for cash deposits by producing details of purchases, sales,cash, book, stock registers, VAT return etc., and the increase indemand of gold during that period being wedding season whencompare to the corresponding previous year. All these details andexplanation were also produced before the Ld. Pr.CIT, however,the Ld. Pr.CIT in her order observed that even during the revisionproceedings assessee has failed to provide the documentaryevidences to prove its contention which is entirely contrary torecord. The Ld. Pr.CIT had made no efforts to examine theevidences and replies furnished by the assessee explaining theanomalies pointed out by the Ld. Pr.CIT. On a reading of the orderof the Ld. Pr.CIT, we see that the Ld. Pr.CIT set aside theassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of theRevenue directing the Assessing Officer for making fresh enquiriesand to consider the cash sales under the purview of section 68/69of the Act on the pretext that there was no enquiry by the AssessingOfficer in the course of assessment proceedings simply stating thatthe AO had not called for the details and assessee had not furnishedevidences and explanations regarding cash deposits and the sourcesof funds introduced as capital by the partners, which is notpermissible under law." 2.In view of the aforesaid, we find that the appeal raises no