9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the addition of Rs. 23,39,951/- made by AO u/s. 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee was unable to substantiate his claim with cogent reasons and supporting evidence." 4. AO while making this addition of Rs. 23,39,951/- has observed as under:- "3.1. In the course of assessment proceedings, bank statement with regard to savings bank account No 15311 maintained by the assesses with The Anand Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited was obtained by issuing notice u/s.l33(6) to the said bank. Verification thereof reveals that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 18,59,951 in this bank account. It is also noticed that there is cheque clearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year under consideration as the assesses is not in a position to recall the source of the same. The copy of bank account is produced for your perusal." 3.3. I have considered the reply of the assessee. It seems that the assessee himself has taken a decision that in his case addition of peak credit can only be made. The assessee has not furnished the peak credit working vide which he has worked out such credit at Rs. 5,10,828. He has also claimed deduction for the peak credit addition made in the immediate preceding year at Rs. 4,35,514 i.e. assessment year 2008-2009. Every assessment year is a separate year and the issues have to be dealt with according to the facts of different assessment years. For applying the peak theory, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopted as stated by the assessee in no way can be applied to the case of the assessee. As discussed herein above, the assessee has to offer his explanation with supporting evidence for the cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 18,59,951 and cheque deposited of Rs. 4,80,000 in his bank account. As no explanation could be offered by the assessee, the cash deposits as well as cheque deposited amounting to Rs. 23,39,951 is held to be the unaccounted investment of the assessee. The same is, therefore, added back to the total income of the assessee u/s.69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated." 5. Ld. CIT(A) after taking into consideration the submission of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances or reasons for such departure. In this regard the support may be drawn from the decision of CIT Vs. Velimali Rubber Co. Ltd. 18 UTR 299 (Ker.) and also from the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Taraben Ramanbhai Patel Vs. ITO 215 ITR 323(Guj.)." 6. After hearing Ld. DR, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that in the immediate preceding year AO has made the addition by applying peak credit theory in respect to the cash deposit in the same bank account and there was no change of circumstances during the year under appeal, therefore we feel that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to follow the same theory of peak credit while quantifying the undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
