Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 872 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed cash deposits in bank account - Held that:- The enquiries of the A.O. revealed that the parties who have purportedly made the impugned advances were related parties and they did not have the creditworthiness to make the advances. The lack of financial capacity of the parties clearly shows an indication that the sale agreements were only make believe arrangements. Since the assessee failed to furnish the evidence to establish the genuineness of the advance, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. Ground No.1.1 of the assessee’s appeal on this issue is dismissed. Unexplained cash deposit by cheque - A.R. stated that these deposits were the business receipts but no evidence was furnished with regard to the source of deposits as well as expenditure incurred in connection with the earning of this money. Therefore it is established that the cheque deposits were from unexplained sources and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. Estimation of income @ 5% - A.O. has rejected the books of accounts and estimated the income - Held that:- A.R. did not make out a case for estimation of income @ 4% with relevant evidences except arguing that earlier percentage of income required to be adopted. We are unable to consider the request of the assessee to reduce the estimation of income without placing the material to substantiate that the estimation of profit @5% was unreasonable. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Allowance of telescopic benefit of estimated income for the additions made independently i.e. cash credits and cheque deposits - Held that:- As A.R. did not make out a case for allowing the telescopic benefit by furnishing the necessary details. Therefore, we do not find any justification for allowing the telescopic benefit and request of the Ld. A.R. is hereby rejected.
|