Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 99 - AT - Income TaxAddition regarding cash deposit made in the bank account - it is contended that, assessee had filed return of income u/s.44AD and deposit was made from the civil contract works and under this section the only profit u/s.44AD can be added - HELD THAT:- If the assessee has offered income u/s.44AD he should separately shown in the computation of income that the profit has been earned from civil contract and it has been offered for taxation under the presumptive Section 44AD. The assessee has also not produced any details before us of the relevant part of the Income Tax Return in which there is a separate columns for the income offered u/s.44AD. The assessee is also unable substantiate with any external vouchers that the amount has been received from the contractee for civil contract works done. No any work order nor any receipts from the contractee has been produced by the assessee. The assessee is only to correlate with the receipts from the contractee as well as the deposit of some amount in the bank account. Ld. AR before us submitted that there was a profit of ₹ 2,16,932/- has been earned from the civil petty contract but he has deposited of ₹ 9,61,984/- in his bank account. The assessee could not establish the deposits in bank account that it has been received from the contractee with cogent materials. Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the observations of the lower authorities in this regard are justified. This ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not proved the creditworthiness of the lenders in respect of total loan received by him. The letter sent by the Assessing Officer was also returned back which has not been made compliance before any of the authorities below. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the sides, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. Charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B - HELD THAT:- We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ajay Prakash Verma Vs. ITO [2013 (1) TMI 140 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] has held that the revenue can levy the interest only on the total income declared in the return of income and not on the income assessed and determined by the AO to that extent. We further notice that in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., [2019 (8) TMI 938 - SC ORDER], in case of charging of interest u/s.234B & 234C of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has admitted the SLP of the Revenue. Since the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court prevails as on date, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to delete the interest levied u/s.234A & 234B of the Act.
|