TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l by way of relevant books and accounts maintained with his so-called friends/customers engaged in chemicals business. We reiterate that it is open for an assessee to tender an explanation along with cogent evidence in support thereof is such kind of proceedings. However, the only limitation is that the same must have element of genuineness and creditworthiness to further buttressed by identity of the parties concerned. No such course of action has been adopted in the instant case. The assessee’s next argument of having charged ₹ 500/- to ₹ 1000/- in each case also suffers from the same lacuna of cogent evident. We find no substance in his argument challenging the impugned additions on merits. The assessee’s next argument see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct . 2. The assessee s twin substantive grounds challenge the Assessing Officer s action inter alia making additions of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 and unaccounted income from undisclosed sources of ₹ 13,22,400/- and ₹ 12,55,501/-; respectively as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. It emerges that factual background of both these issues is common. The assesseeindividual is an employee of M/s. Sky and Skylark Industrial Products, GIDC Ankleshwar and a partner in M/s. Rohan Chemicals. The Assessing Officer in the course of scrutiny noticed him to have maintaining two bank accounts with HDFC Bank and the Anklesh Udhognar Co-operative Bank. He had made cash credit of ₹ 13,22,400/- in the former account and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned cash credits. The Assessing Officer thereafter adverted to assessee s cooperative bank account. His verification revealed that the above stated cheques were self drawn to prove all the debit entries were withdrawals by the assessee himself. The Assessing Officer treated these sums as unaccounted income from undisclosed sources for making the impugned additions of ₹ 12,55, 501/-. 4. The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer s findings. He further rejects assessee s plea to take peak credit of the deposits in question on the ground that the relevant credit/deposit entries did not prove that it was the same cash withdrawn and re-deposited but involved third parties/friends. This made the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s next argument of having charged ₹ 500/- to ₹ 1000/- in each case also suffers from the same lacuna of cogent evident. We find no substance in his argument challenging the impugned additions on merits. 6. The assessee s next argument seeks to invoke peak credit principle in the impugned addition. His case is that the relevant credit transactions have corresponding debit transactions wherein the very amount has been re-deposited. We find the same to be entirely a misconceived plea. We revert back to his explanation that his friends throughout the country have made the impugned deposits/credits without specifying their identity. This is his case from the beginning that he had been involved in transferring in and out the ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
