Suggestive Grounds for taking in appeal to be filed for

additions made in the Assessment Order on account of

cash deposits against sales/cash balance/recovery from
debtors. Same may be modified depending upon facts of
each case.

1. That the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting books of account u/s

145(3) of the Act in the case of the Appellant, which were duly
audited, without any basis and justification and making the
assessment u/s 144 of the Act.

2. That the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition on account

of cash deposited in the bank account out of sale proceeds/cash
balance/recovery from debtors alleging the same to be income
chargeable to tax u/s 68 / 69A without appreciating the facts of the
case and the scope of provisions of above section.

3. That the Assessing Officer erred in taking a view that the appellant
has not provided details such as Identity, creditworthiness and
genuineness of the transaction in respect of sales made to the
buyers under reference without appreciating that in case of cash
sales no such details are maintained as per the normal practice in
this regard.

4. That the Assessing Officer erred in making addition u/s 68 of the

Act in the case of the appellant without appreciating that provisions
of Section 68 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of
the case since the Appellant has already accounted for income
represented by cash deposited in the bank and therefore, same
 cannot be considered to be undisclosed income in terms of Section
68 of the Act.

5. That the Assessing Officer erred in making addition on account of

cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act without giving proper opportunity to
the Appellant to explain the facts of the case and also without
appreciating that the Appellant has been regularly making cash
deposits in the bank account and deposits under reference cannot
be alleged to be undisclosed income only for the reason that during
the particular period amounts deposited were excessive as
compared to amounts deposited in other periods without correctly
examining into the record of the appellant and considering the
circumstances under which cash was deposited in the bank
account.

6. That the Assessing Officer erred in making addition by referring to

provisions of Section 69A of the Act without appreciating that
provisions of above Section are not applicable in a case where the
Appellant has deposited the cash in the bank account since
provisions of above Section are applicable when an assessee is
found to be owner of an asset during the course of search or
survey and provisions cannot be invoked in a case where
assessee has already declared the cash by way of depositing in
the bank account and making necessary entries in the books of
account regularly maintained by it.

7. That the Assessing Officer erred in making addition in respect of

cash deposits without fully appreciating and following the
instructions of CBDT issued in this regard and also without
 referring the matter to higher authorities for necessary approval as
was required and also without fully examining the record in regard
to cash deposits made by the Appellant as has been directed to be
examined by CBDT.

8. That the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition in respect

of cash deposited in the bank account which were represented by
cash balance in the hands of the Appellant as per the books of
account u/s 68 / 69A and in any case addition could not be made in
respect of cash balance as per books of account as on 01.04.2016
in view of clear instructions of CBDT in this regard.

9. That the Assessing Officer also erred in making the addition on

account of cash deposits without making adjustment in respect
thereof in the profit of the Appellant which ought to have been
adjusted since the Appellant has already credited the amount of
cash deposits by way of sales in the Profit and Loss Account for
the year ended 31.03.2017 and profit has accordingly been
determined and shown in the Return of Income and therefore
addition made without making adjustment in profit declared in the
return has resulted in double addition.

10. That the Assessing Officer erred in making addition on account of

cash deposited in the bank which was represented by cash
balance as per books and/or recovery from sundry debtors without
appreciating that amount under reference has already been
considered as income by the Appellant in the year under reference
or in earlier years and, therefore, addition made in this respect has
 resulted in double addition which cannot be made as per settled
legal position.

11. That the Assessing Officer erred in applying provisions of Section

115BBE of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case of
Appellant and determining the tax-liability as per the aforesaid
Section without appreciating that provisions of Section 68/69A
were not applicable in the facts of the case and, therefore,
provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act could not be invoked.

12. That the Assessing Officer erred in determining tax liability as per
Section 115BBE of the Act in the case of the appellant in respect of
income which has already been included in the Return of Income
without appreciating that the income which has already been
declared in return cannot be deemed to be undisclosed income as
per Section 68/69A of the Act and therefore Section 115BBE is not
applicable in this case.

13. That the Assessing Officer also erred in charging interest u/s 234B
and 234C of the Act while determining demand payable by the
Appellant without appreciating that since the Appellant could not be
held liable for the payment of advance tax for the amount under
reference, no interest u/s 234B and 234C could be charged
particularly for the reason that special rate of tax has been
provided under the Act and in any case charging the interest
without recording proper satisfaction in this regard is illegal and
unjustified and also result in demand even more than the amount
of addition.
14. That the Assessing Officer also erred in initiating penalty
proceedings u/s 270AAC of the Act without recording proper
satisfaction in that regard.

15. That the order has been passed by the Assessing Officer making
the additions under reference without giving proper show cause
notice and providing due opportunity to the appellant and therefore
same is bad in law being passed without following principles of
natural justice.