Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 623 - AT - Income TaxAdditions u/s 68 - cash credit - Failure to produce supporting evidences – Source of cash deposited in back – Held that:- The deposit and withdrawal from the bank accounts were in thousands only, sometimes even in hundreds - The deposit or withdrawal at a time has never touched even Rs.50,000 - The bank balance is also in thousands of Rupees - the assessee derives income from business - the fact that assessee carried on the business is not in dispute - the explanation of the assessee that the deposit in the bank account and withdrawal there from were relating to the assessee’s business cannot be ruled out - In the absence of complete day-to-day details having been maintained by the assessee, CIT(A) has already sustained the addition of Rs.1 lakh - Even if the theory of peak credit is applied, then also, the addition will not exceed Rs.1 lakh – there was no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Deletion of agricultural income made - Failure to give proof of land holding and sale bills of agricultural produce – Held that:- The assessee did not give any explanation with regard to his land holding or any evidence for the agricultural income - He simply stated that the AO is not justified to reject the agricultural income declared by the assessee and the same was simply accepted by the CIT(A) - the assessee did not furnish any details with regard to his agricultural holding or any evidence for earning of agricultural income even in front of Tribunal – the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition – Decided in favour of Revenue. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Failure to produce any documentary evidence – Cash deposits in bank account - Failure to give proof of land holding and sale bills of agricultural produce – Held that:- The CIT(A) rightly was of the view that with regard to addition of Rs.19,51,940/- because in respect of such addition, the assessee has given explanation that the deposit was relating to assessee’s business receipt - the assessee had income from business - Though in the quantum appeal learned CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.1 lakh on adhoc basis, in the penalty appeal, he has arrived at the conclusion that on such lump sum estimated addition, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted - the assessee has given an explanation with regard to bank deposit which is partly accepted by the CIT(A) and partly rejected on estimated basis – Decided partly in favour of Revenue. With regard to agricultural income of Rs.55,400/-, the assessee has not given any explanation either before the AO or before the CIT(A) or before the Tribunal – he has not furnished the details of agricultural holding, if any, by the assessee – thus, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) would be justified on addition of Rs.55,400 – Decided in favour of Revenue.
|