TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue Department. The material on record clearly suggest that assessee was doing business activities and different sale proceeds amounts received from the debtors, which have been deposited in the Bank Accounts. One Bank account accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) because it was disclosed in the return of income. Interest from both the Bank Accounts have been disclosed in the computation of income filed with the return of income, as such, the CIT(A) on the same reasoning should not have made the addition against the assessee. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposited in Oriental Bank of Commerce. A.O. has taken only the cash deposits in the Bank Account ignoring the amounts withdrawn from the same Bank account, which should have al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposits in his bank accounts were out of sale turnover effected during the financial year and payments received from outstanding debtors. However, the assessee failed to furnish evidences to substantiate its claim with regard to cash deposited in his bank accounts. The A.O. accordingly made the addition of ₹ 26,98,900/- treating the same as unexplained cash deposits under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). Written submissions of the assessee is reproduced in the appellate order, in which the assessee briefly explained that assessee declared income of ₹ 1,82,070/- under different heads of income which includes Income from Business and Profession ₹ 2,03,877/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained that both the additions are wholly unjustified. The Ld. CIT(A), considering the explanation of assessee, deleted the addition of ₹ 11,61,500/-. The Ld. CIT(A), however, confirmed the addition of ₹ 15,37,400/-. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee failed to explain this addition and failed to prove that it was collected with business activity of the assessee. 4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that assessee filed complete details i.e., sales, purchases and details of debtors, which would prove that assessee was doing business activities and declared income under section 44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961, therefore, no books of account were required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been disclosed to the Revenue Department, therefore, it cannot be said that Bank Account have not been disclosed to the Revenue Department. He has, therefore, submitted that addition is wholly unjustified. 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that no return for earlier year was filed. PB-27 is cash deposits in the Bank Accounts which was mostly at the end of the year. No source of the cash deposit have been explained. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Judgment of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. CIT, Patiala [2017] 88 taxmann.com 547 (P H). 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Learned Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
