Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 786 - ITAT AHMEDABADApplication of Net profit rate of 5% on estimated turnover of ₹ 90,00,000/- - Held that:- It is not in dispute that payment of ₹ 84,18,580/- was made for purchase of trading goods. The Authorized Representative of the assessee could not bring any material before us to show that any trading goods so purchased remained unsold at the end of the relevant year. The assessee’s turnover also includes the business expenditure and profit of the assessee, besides the purchases. The assessee was not able to bring any material before us to show the amount of its other business expenses and the amount of gross profit earned by it. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in estimating assessee’s turnover at ₹ 90,00,000/- which was most reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention of the assessee that purchases of ₹ 13,73,600/- was shown by his wife in her Return of Income merits no interference with the finding of the CIT(A) as the assessee miserably failed to bring on record any material to show that payments were made from his credit card in respect of purchases made by his wife and in absence of any material to show how and when such repayments were made by his wife to him. - Decided against assessee. Addition on investment as peak deposit - Held that:- The assessee has brought no material before us to show that there was any error in the finding of the CIT(A) that the assessee made peak deposit of ₹ 5,26,869/- on 19.11.2007. Further, the assessee has brought no material to explain the source of the said peak deposit.- Decided against assessee. Unexplained credit card expenditure - purchase of trading goods - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- No material was brought on record by the Revenue after making necessary enquiries to show that payments from credit card was not made for purchase of trading goods, but was made for any personal expenses cannot be brushed aside simply on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without bringing on record material to controvert the explanation of the assessee. In absence of any material brought before us to show that the explanation of the assessee was not plausible, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against Revenue.
|