TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of Rs.5,51,321/- also consisted of cash of Rs.1,25,726 - The appellant has not given any evidence to the effect that this cash actually has been brought forward from the earlier year - This cash has surfaced in the period relevant for A.Y. 2002- 03 for the first time - Cash represents unexplained income of the appellant for A.Y. 2002-03 - The addition of Rs.1,80,750/- on account of opening balance is restricted to Rs.1,25,726 - Partly allowed in favour of assessee. Unexplained investment - Held that:- The assessee has deposit of Rs. 10,000 in Mahesh Sahakari Bank - In view of the addition of commission income and cash available the addition should not be made - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1680 and 1681/PN/2012 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for RTO liaison work the Assessing Officer estimated such income at Rs.30,000/-. While doing so, he noted that this is the income shown by the assessee for the first year of filing his return of income. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer for which the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the addition of Rs.9,150/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A). She submitted that since the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A and since no incriminating material was found during the course of search, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the income declared by the assessee and estimating such income at Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pears to be on the higher side. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we restrict such estimate of income to Rs.24,000/- as against Rs.30,000/- determined by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). Thus, the addition of Rs.9,150/- is restricted to Rs.3,150/-. 6. So far as the decision relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to the proposition that in absence of any incriminating material profit cannot be estimated by the Assessing Officer, we find the same is not applicabl to the facts of the present case. In the case of Shri Gurinder Singh Bawa (Supra), the return was filed prior to the date of search. Further, in that case, assessment had been processed u/s.143(1) and no notice u/s.143(2) has been issued. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce filed before him determined the capital held by the assessee prior to A.Y. 2002-03 as under : i) FD with Mahesh Sahakari Bank Rs.2,63,317/- ii) FD with Mahesh Mahila Bank Rs. 49,402/- iii) Recurring deposit Rs. 70,000/- iv) Mahesh Sahakari Bank S.B.a/c No.9293 Rs. 42,541/- Rs.4,25,260/- Less : Income shown in P L a/c. on above FDs, R.D. i) Interest on FDs Rs.48,541/- ii) Interest on S.B. a/c. Rs. 1,607/- iii) Interest on R.D. Rs. 4,517/- Rs. 54,665/- Balance Rs.3,70,595/- 8. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer the assessee submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny income of the A.Y. 2002-03. The opening balance of Rs.5,51,321/- also consisted of cash of Rs.1,25,726/-. The appellant has not given any evidence to the effect that this cash actually has been brought forward from the earlier year. Under the circumstances, this cash has surfaced in the period relevant for A.Y. 2002- 03 for the first time. Under the circumstances, this cash represents unexplained income of the appellant for A.Y. 2002-03. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,80,750/- on account of opening balance is restricted to Rs.1,25,726/-. Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed." 9.1 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication. In this view of the matter, ground of appeal No.2 by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1681/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) : 12. Ground of appeal No.1 by the assessee reads as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.27,900/- to the commission income on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the commission" 12.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that as against declaration of Rs.12,100/- on account of commission for RTO liaison work the Assessing Officer estimated the same at Rs.40,000/- in absence of any documentary evidence/proof for earning such commission income. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.27,900/- for which the assessee is in appeal before us. 13. After hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
