Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2093 - ITAT SURATUnaccounted income - AIR information revealed that the assessee has had bank account with Yes bank Ltd. in which total deposits were seen including cash deposits - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is a salaried person and deriving salary from Kalyani Multilink Pvt. Ltd. The deposits appearing in the bank account under consideration has not been disclosed - pattern of deposits in bank account would show that these are there are some transaction in which cheque has been issued. There are debit entries in this bank account. The assessee has claimed that this bank account pertained to her business in trading. Ongoing through bank statement and facts of the case we observe that there are frequent transaction of cash as well as cheques. On careful consideration of facts, we are of the view that entire deposits in bank account cannot be considered for addition. Since the bank account is reflecting deposits as well as withdrawals, hence, there is every likely that bank account has been used for unrecorded business transactions as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that only profit eliminate @ 5% is considered for tax of total deposits - Therefore, the AO is directed to consider net profit @ 5% of total deposits which worked out to Rs. 91,600. Accordingly this addition of Rs. 14,76,614 is restricted to Rs. 91,600. This ground is therefore, partly allowed. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has filed confirmation bank statement and copy of return of income of her husband but the bank statement of her husband shows that there is cash deposits of Rs. 2 Lakh before issue of cheques to the assessee. Further the total income shown by her husband is only Rs. 98,000. Hence, the depositor has no capacity to advance such amount of loan. Therefore, the addition so made needs to be confirmed in the case of Umesh Krishnani [2013 (8) TMI 79 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Hence, we do not have any reason to differ with decision of Ld. CIT (A), therefore, same upheld. Accordingly, this grounds of appeal is therefore, dismissed.
|