Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

sales instances were also not recorded in the books of account and subsequently, the entries have been made to complete the books of account. I further find that various transactions like sales to IRCTC, sales in ordinary/express trains, bank deposits, bank and cash collection and various expenses etc were executed before the date of search but entries in the books of account could not be made due to various reasons as narrated earlier. The sales of the appellant are also matching with the GST returns which were filed prior to search and seizure proceedings. The appellant has also submitted evidences regarding pending entries like bank statements evidencing bank deposits and payment made, GST returns evidencing sales made to IRCTC and retail customers in trains/restaurants. Therefore, the appellant has validly updated its books of accounts which should have been taken into consideration by the AO. I find substance in the submission of the appellant that cash payments made to SBIL were not recorded in the books of account and these books of account at the time of search were incomplete for the genuine and practical reasons. Following data reveals that sales shown in GST returns and sales recorded in completed books of accounts are matching with insignificant variation in the month of August and September,2019:-

It has been explained that difference of appearing in the month of April to July 2019 is related to sales of Bhilai Restaurant whose books were not available in seized data. However, GST returns were filed much before the search and seizure proceedings and sales figures shown in the GST return are matching with the completed books of account. Regarding sales difference for the month of August 2019, it has been explained that train sales amounting to Rs. 8,19,64,163/-, sales amounting to Rs. 8,30,370/- of Bhilai Restaurant not available in seized data and train sales of Rs. 9, 12,481/- were short booked. However, the total sales in GST return has been shown which again matches with the completed books of account. It is pertinent to mention that GST Returns for the above months had already been filed much before the date of Search.

cash found from the office premises and residence of the assessee during the search was duly reconciled with the completed books of accounts, such facts were submitted before the Ld. AO also, who accepted the same and on such position of cash balance no negative inference was drawn. The cash sales of the assessee was also supported by the GST returns thus cannot be termed as an afterthought. Ld CIT(A) also observed that the assessee has made entries in the books of accounts on the basis of bills / vouchers / statements of branches, hence, the books completed are duly supported with lawful evidence. An important aspect regarding the sales of assessee that certain sale proceeds are received from IRCTC generated in Rajdhani Express through banking channel which had also remained to be entered in the books of accounts. Such error of the assessee cannot be treated as malafide or intentional as the same was duly included in the GST return of the assessee. With such observations, Ld. CIT(A) had concluded and rightly so that there is substance in the submission of the assessee that cash payment made to SBIL were not recorded in the books of accounts which are incomplete at the time of search for genuine and practical reasons. Ld. CIT(A) also analysed the comparative data of sales from GST returns and sales recorded in the completed / audited books and found that the same are matching with very paltry and insignificant variation. Ld. CIT(A) also after perusal of month wise sales figures of the assessee for the FY 2019-20 in comparison to previous FY 2018-19 have observed that there is no abnormal increase / decrease in total sales of the assessee, therefore, the sales figures shown for the year under consideration cannot be doubted. It is the observation M/s Brandavan Food Products, Rahul Agrawal, R.K. Associates & Hotliers Pvt. Ltd.

M/s Brandavan Food Products, Rahul Agrawal, R.K. Associates & Hotliers Pvt. Ltd.

15.2 Ld. AR on the other hand placed his reliance on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and have vehemently submitted that the cash paid by the assessee (BEF) to SBIL was out of surplus sales of the assessee, this fact was duly declared by Shri Rahul Agrawal in his statement during the search stating that such cash was out of sales, irrespective of the facts whether they were 'suppressed' or 'disclosed'. It is also submitted that the R.K. Group does not have any other source across all verticals to generate such huge cash apart from business operations. Ld. AR further explained that the cash sales of all the entities from R.K. Group are duly supported by GST returns and such returns were filed with the competent government authorities before the date of search (copies of such monthly GST returns for FY 2019-20 are enclosed in the assessee PB placed before us). Adverting further on the issue Ld. AR submitted that the availability of cash with the respective entities cannot be doubted as the seized books of accounts during the search proceedings have also showing the cash balance of Rs.7.79 crores in the case of M/s BFP (Rs.30.88 crores in the case of R. K. Associates and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.), such fact is duly appreciated and recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order. Before us, on this issue during the hearing also when the Ld. AR was confronted to place the details of turnover for the AY 2019-20 along with month wise details of GST returns incorporating the date of filing of such returns, such details were furnished and found to be in consonance with the observations and details reproduced by Ld. CIT(A) in his order. Ld. AR M/s Brandavan Food Products, Rahul Agrawal, R.K. Associates & Hotliers Pvt. Ltd.